Netanyahu’s Peace Strategy Has a Big Problem

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

Netanyahu’s no-conditions ‘peace for peace' doctrine, legitimized by Trump, is great for the Gulf. But it’s irrelevant for Israel’s conflicts with its actual neighbors, not least the Palestinians. Benjamin Netanyahu, mulling his legacy as Israel’s longest serving prime minister, is trying to mint a new doctrine bearing his name. The "Netanyahu Doctrine" is predicated on the principle of "peace for peace." How logical, how brilliant. Except for two problems. 

The first is that it is not original. In fact, Israel’s most right-wing prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, coined it many years ago. Shamir, as we know, abstained in the Knesset votes on the Camp David Accords and the subsequent peace treaty with Egypt. He did not object in principle to making peace with Israel’s enemies, only to Israeli withdrawal from the territories it captured in 1967, and sought instead of "land for peace" to promote a policy of "peace for peace."https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-netanyahu-s-brilliant-mideast-peace-strategy-has-a-big-problem-1.9150936

United Nations, The Question of Palestine Peace and the Key issues at Stake: Set out below are the positions of the Exercise of inalienable rights of the Palestinians on permanent status and other relevant issues: https://www.un.org/unispal/permanent-status-issues/            

 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[RoofGardener 17,393]

Hmm.. who are Israels "actual neighbours" ? 

In terms of actual nations, I guess these are Egypt, Jordan, Lebannon and Syria. 

Well, there have been long-standing, and very successful, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Syria has maintained a state of war (unilaterally) since 1973, and Lebanon since the 1990's (I believe ? ). 

So these are the "neighbours".  Syria is currently a basket case, and Lebanon isn't much better, initially occupied by Syria for 10 years, and subsequently heavily influenced by Iran and Hezbollah, to the detriment of good governance. (both Iran and Hezbollah's primary focus is on destroying Israel, rather than serving the citizens of Lebanon). Neither really poses and existential threat to Israel, though Iran's increasing involvement in both Lebanon and Syria is worrying. 

AS for the UN report: that bases its position on the Oslo accords. The PLO abrogated those accords from day one (actually, before day one) when it lied in the Letters of Recognition, so the UN report is somewhat irrelevant ? 

So that, then, leaves us with the Palestinians ? (or rather, with the PLO, as the 'palestinian' people have no democratic voice, and no ability to influence matters). However, the PLO relies on financial and political support from the surrounding Arab states (along with 'muslim' states in Africa and the far east).  If that support starts to decline, and if more Arab states start to normalise relations, then they will simply wither on the vine. 

 

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

3 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. who are Israels "actual neighbours" ? 

In terms of actual nations, I guess these are Egypt, Jordan, Lebannon and Syria. 

Well, there have been long-standing, and very successful, peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Syria has maintained a state of war (unilaterally) since 1973, and Lebanon since the 1990's (I believe ? ). 

So these are the "neighbours".  Syria is currently a basket case, and Lebanon isn't much better, initially occupied by Syria for 10 years, and subsequently heavily influenced by Iran and Hezbollah, to the detriment of good governance. (both Iran and Hezbollah's primary focus is on destroying Israel, rather than serving the citizens of Lebanon). Neither really poses and existential threat to Israel, though Iran's increasing involvement in both Lebanon and Syria is worrying. 

AS for the UN report: that bases its position on the Oslo accords. The PLO abrogated those accords from day one (actually, before day one) when it lied in the Letters of Recognition, so the UN report is somewhat irrelevant ? 

So that, then, leaves us with the Palestinians ? (or rather, with the PLO, as the 'palestinian' people have no democratic voice, and no ability to influence matters). However, the PLO relies on financial and political support from the surrounding Arab states (along with 'muslim' states in Africa and the far east).  If that support starts to decline, and if more Arab states start to normalise relations, then they will simply wither on the vine. 

 

As I have stated, the UAE peace Treaties are noting even the Israelis do not think they serve an important purpose. The only people who think they are so wonderful ( I  Have much data I can Post ) is Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Everyone else thinks that before any kind of Peace can be accomplished for Israel the Palestinian question must be settled, and a Peace Plan must be put in place. That will eliminate Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO along with other factions in located in Lebanon. By doing this their boarders will safe, except for a small area of Israel ( Golan Heights ) that borders Syria, which do to the Military Build up of Fixed Fortifications, Artillery, Tanks and almost 2 Divisions of Israeli Military Personnel, is not threat.

So what you proposed before I do not agree with, and neither do most Israelis like the paper the Haaretz stated, along with more articles I can post.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Manwon Lender

[RoofGardener 17,393]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

As I have stated, the UAE peace Treaties are noting even the Israelis do not think they serve an important purpose. The only people who think they are so wonderful ( I  Have much data I can Post ) is Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu. Everyone else thinks that before any kind of Peace can be accomplished for Israel the Palestinian question must be settled, and a Peace Plan must be put in place. That will eliminate Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO along with other factions in located in Lebanon. By doing this their boarders will safe, except for a small area of Israel ( Golan Heights ) that borders Syria, which do to the Military Build up of Fixed Fortifications, Artillery, Tanks and almost 2 Divisions of Israeli Military Personnel, is not threat.

So what you proposed before I do not agree with, and neither do most Israelis like the paper the Haaretz stated, along with more articles I can post.

Hmmm.... I don't see it that way. For the first time since modern Israel came into being, an arab nation (three, actually) have negotiated terms WITHOUT reference to the PLO. That is a HUGE precedent, and potentially opens the flood gates ! 

AS things stand, the PLO is still committed to the destruction of Isreal, and also for the "right of return" for all the grand-children of palestinian arabs of the male line who fled Israel back in  1948.. about 5 million of them. This would end Israel as a democracy, so it is obviously a sticking point for Israel. 

I think the surrounding arab states have got heartedly sick of "the Palestinians", and its starting to sho. 

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

7 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmmm.... I don't see it that way. For the first time since modern Israel came into being, an arab nation (three, actually) have negotiated terms WITHOUT reference to the PLO. That is a HUGE precedent, and potentially opens the flood gates ! 

AS things stand, the PLO is still committed to the destruction of Isreal, and also for the "right of return" for all the grand-children of palestinian arabs of the male line who fled Israel back in  1948.. about 5 million of them. This would end Israel as a democracy, so it is obviously a sticking point for Israel. 

I think the surrounding arab states have got heartedly sick of "the Palestinians", and its starting to sho. 

I certainly think you are welcome to your opinion, but until you have written proof that backs it up it only an opinion. Like I have said I dont see the UAE Peace discussions doing anything constructive concerning Israeli Security. The benefit is purely economic and nothing else and to call this Economic Treaty a ground breaking step toward peace is not only ludicrous, it is also completely delusional. I fined it even harder to believe that according to your comments above that the UAE or any other Arab State would have become, yo use your words Heartedly Sick of the Palestinians. The Muslim ideology is based on one thing and that is the Koran, and by their religious beliefs alone they will support Muslims over any other people, especially Israelis.

While I was on Active Duty in the Army, as part of my Military Occupational Skill identifier ( My Job ) I was required to take a year of Middle Eastern studies that centered on Israeli / Arab studies. Part of it was taken at local Colleges and part of was given by Military instructors, when it was all complete I had a Minor in Israeli Military conflicts / Security Concerns. In my opinion it is impossible to discuss the Security of Israel if you do not not have a complete understanding of the information I have included below.

Origins of Hezbollah: https://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0202_l1.htm

Origin of the Muslim Brotherhood ( The father organization for Hamas, and the PLO )

Origin of Hamas: https://www.paljourneys.org/sites/default/files/The_Origins_of_Hamas.pdf

Origin of the PLO: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/457225

Here is a Military Document that is used for teaching purposes at the United States Army War College, it is titled  (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - A Case Study for the United States Military in Foreign Internal Defense )   https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437597.pdf

Thanks my Brother for your comments, I would like to continue our chat as you have time to do so!! If you have the time to review some of information I have included, it will give you a better overall picture of the base root cause of all conflicts fought by Israel and the true challenges that Israeli Security faces today.

[and then 47,302]

17 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

The PLO abrogated those accords from day one (actually, before day one) when it lied in the Letters of Recognition, so the UN report is somewhat irrelevant

This is just another in a long line of Palestinians never missing a chance to miss a chance.  No sympathy for people who have an all or nothing stance.  

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

6 hours ago, and then said:

This is just another in a long line of Palestinians never missing a chance to miss a chance.  No sympathy for people who have an all or nothing stance.  

Yes Israel does have an all or nothing stance, and the Trump Peace plan with the UAE did direct attention away from the Palestinian problem iot certainly meant nothing for the Peace process that Trump touted, it was a big deal. When in actually the purpose it serves is economic, so in reality it should never have been called a Peace plan in the first place, it should and rightly so have been called a trade deal because that is all it is>

https://www.ochaopt.org/poc/11-24-august-2020

https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-israel-and-occupied-palestinian-territories/

[RoofGardener 17,393]

On 11/27/2020 at 10:39 PM, Manwon Lender said:

I certainly think you are welcome to your opinion, but until you have written proof that backs it up it only an opinion. Like I have said I dont see the UAE Peace discussions doing anything constructive concerning Israeli Security. The benefit is purely economic and nothing else and to call this Economic Treaty a ground breaking step toward peace is not only ludicrous, it is also completely delusional. I fined it even harder to believe that according to your comments above that the UAE or any other Arab State would have become, yo use your words Heartedly Sick of the Palestinians. The Muslim ideology is based on one thing and that is the Koran, and by their religious beliefs alone they will support Muslims over any other people, especially Israelis.

While I was on Active Duty in the Army, as part of my Military Occupational Skill identifier ( My Job ) I was required to take a year of Middle Eastern studies that centered on Israeli / Arab studies. Part of it was taken at local Colleges and part of was given by Military instructors, when it was all complete I had a Minor in Israeli Military conflicts / Security Concerns. In my opinion it is impossible to discuss the Security of Israel if you do not not have a complete understanding of the information I have included below.

Origins of Hezbollah: https://www.meforum.org/meib/articles/0202_l1.htm

Origin of the Muslim Brotherhood ( The father organization for Hamas, and the PLO )

Origin of Hamas: https://www.paljourneys.org/sites/default/files/The_Origins_of_Hamas.pdf

Origin of the PLO: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/457225

Here is a Military Document that is used for teaching purposes at the United States Army War College, it is titled  (The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - A Case Study for the United States Military in Foreign Internal Defense )   https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437597.pdf

Thanks my Brother for your comments, I would like to continue our chat as you have time to do so!! If you have the time to review some of information I have included, it will give you a better overall picture of the base root cause of all conflicts fought by Israel and the true challenges that Israeli Security faces today.

Thank you for that, @Manwon Lender. There's quite a lot in there, so excuse me if I break it down a little. 

In regard your first paragraph; I think the recognition accords between the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan ARE a significant step towards peace. After all, you can't have peace without mutual diplomatic recognition, and hence these accords are a first step towards peace. In addition, the consequent economic benefits - through trade - will be another step. Note again that these are NOT 'trade negotiations', although trade IS a side-effect of them. They are DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION. 

You may recall that the prerequisite of the Oslo accords where just that: both Israel and the PLO had to formally recognize each other as negotiating partners (a thing that had NOT happened before). Even the UN recognised the importance of mutual recognition in the peace process. And it is mutual recognition that is at the heart of the current UAE/Bahraini/Sudanese treaties. 

I haven't read the whole of Lt Col Goodwyn's article, but I WOULD criticise his historic viewpoint of the arab/israeli conflict. In particular, in the section relating to the history of the conflict. 

In particular, he refers to "Palestinians", when he actually means Arabs. You must recall that "Palestinians" didn't exist until about 1964, when Egypt - with help from the KGB's political revolutionary propaganda section - created the PLO. (Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian, not a "Palestinian"). Even the original PLO covenant refers to "Arabs", and only mentions "Palestinians" in a geographical sense, and not in the sense of a Nation. 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

(note the total absence of the description of a Palestinian Nation). 

I'm afraid his monologue is - accordingly - fatally flawed, as it bases its roots on an inaccurate reading of the origins of the conflict. 

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

16 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Thank you for that, @Manwon Lender. There's quite a lot in there, so excuse me if I break it down a little. 

In regard your first paragraph; I think the recognition accords between the UAE, Bahrain, and Sudan ARE a significant step towards peace. After all, you can't have peace without mutual diplomatic recognition, and hence these accords are a first step towards peace. In addition, the consequent economic benefits - through trade - will be another step. Note again that these are NOT 'trade negotiations', although trade IS a side-effect of them. They are DIPLOMATIC RECOGNITION. 

You may recall that the prerequisite of the Oslo accords where just that: both Israel and the PLO had to formally recognize each other as negotiating partners (a thing that had NOT happened before). Even the UN recognised the importance of mutual recognition in the peace process. And it is mutual recognition that is at the heart of the current UAE/Bahraini/Sudanese treaties. 

I haven't read the whole of Lt Col Goodwyn's article, but I WOULD criticise his historic viewpoint of the arab/israeli conflict. In particular, in the section relating to the history of the conflict. 

In particular, he refers to "Palestinians", when he actually means Arabs. You must recall that "Palestinians" didn't exist until about 1964, when Egypt - with help from the KGB's political revolutionary propaganda section - created the PLO. (Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian, not a "Palestinian"). Even the original PLO covenant refers to "Arabs", and only mentions "Palestinians" in a geographical sense, and not in the sense of a Nation. 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp

(note the total absence of the description of a Palestinian Nation). 

I'm afraid his monologue is - accordingly - fatally flawed, as it bases its roots on an inaccurate reading of the origins of the conflict. 

No I would disagree that his monologue was flawed, in truth Israeli were first called Palestinians, the term only later applied to Arabic people who had inhabited the region for thousands and thousands of years, so actually their was no flaw only a misinterpretation of who the name belonged too.http://www.sfmew.org/the-history-of-the-term-palestine/

However, I still do not agree with your assessment of the UAE peace deal, I'm the opinion of all sources I have referenced above in presvious posts to this thread, that was at best nothing except a economic deal that will bennifit Israel economically if it is ever made a lasting agreement between the UAE and Israel. I must admit though the true reason I started this thread was to act as  companion thread that would explain why Trump was so interested in the Middle East Peace process.

Which actually had little if anything to do with true peace in the Middle East. In reality the entire Middle East Peace process is nothing but a complete sham propagated to actually hide what was truly occurring in that region. Since Trump took office, he has done nothing except to kick a Arab Honets nest. He started doing it when he delegitimized the Iranian Nuclear deal. Next he further added insult to injury when he name Jerusalem the capital of .Israel, next he has tried to cause a state of war with Iran by provoking then by bring back and putting in place all the sactions that had been lifted.

All of this was done because he is a puppet that is guided by Christian Zionist influence in the White House, so before we discuss this thread any further go to the link I provided below and catch up on exactly what I am speaking about.

 

 

 

[RoofGardener 17,393]

39 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

No I would disagree that his monologue was flawed, in truth Israeli were first called Palestinians, the term only later applied to Arabic people who had inhabited the region for thousands and thousands of years, so actually their was no flaw only a misinterpretation of who the name belonged too.http://www.sfmew.org/the-history-of-the-term-palestine/

Ummm... no. 

Arabs invaded and occupied the region in around the late AD600's, so we are talking - at best - about 1400 years. However, the region known as Judea and Samaria was neglected by the Arabs, and largely unpopulated. Arabs only started to migrate in there when the Jewish population started to rise in the late 1800's and early 1900's, attracted by the work that the Jews offered, and the improved economy that they brought. Most Arab 'Palestinians' can only trace their heritage back a hundred years, at most, and the bulk a MUCH shorter time-span than that. 

Note that we should distinguish the term "Palestinian" meant in its broad geographical sense, with the sense of a Nation State, which is a very recent innovation. 

45 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Since Trump took office, he has done nothing except to kick a Arab Honets nest. He started doing it when he delegitimized the Iranian Nuclear deal. Next he further added insult to injury when he name Jerusalem the capital of .Israel, next he has tried to cause a state of war with Iran by provoking then by bring back and putting in place all the sactions that had been lifted.

 

The Embassy move was authorised by Congress back in.. what.. the 1990's ? Why should the Palestinians decide where America can put its embassies ? You'll notice that the majority of Arab states have NOT made any serious objection to it ?

You say "Kicking the hornets nest". Well.. yes.. you COULD interpret it in that way. Just like standing up to a bully can be described as "Kicking a hornets nest". The West in general has been shockingly complient in sucking up to Middle-Eastern countries, often at Israel's expense, for the last 100 years. What Trump did was stand up and be counted. 

The Iranian deal was a pathetic peace of moral cowardice. A much better solution would have been to force them NOT to develop nuclear weapons, initially by sanctions, but ultimately by bombing their uranium refinement sites. It's the only language they understand. You'll notice that they accidently revealed - in their reaction to the US pulling out - that they had been building up centrifuges in breach of the agreement ? 

As for "Christian Zionist" influences in the White House; I'm sorry, but I don't see that. There ARE many Christian Zionists in the White House. But there are several Jews, Muslims and, for all I know, Pastafarians there as well. Lots of people queue up to try and influence the President. But the Iran deal - and the Embassy move - can be easily explained without having to resort to theo-political conspiracy theories ? 

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

54 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ummm... no. 

Arabs invaded and occupied the region in around the late AD600's, so we are talking - at best - about 1400 years. However, the region known as Judea and Samaria was neglected by the Arabs, and largely unpopulated. Arabs only started to migrate in there when the Jewish population started to rise in the late 1800's and early 1900's, attracted by the work that the Jews offered, and the improved economy that they brought. Most Arab 'Palestinians' can only trace their heritage back a hundred years, at most, and the bulk a MUCH shorter time-span than that. 

Note that we should distinguish the term "Palestinian" meant in its broad geographical sense, with the sense of a Nation State, which is a very recent innovation. 

The Embassy move was authorised by Congress back in.. what.. the 1990's ? Why should the Palestinians decide where America can put its embassies ? You'll notice that the majority of Arab states have NOT made any serious objection to it ?

You say "Kicking the hornets nest". Well.. yes.. you COULD interpret it in that way. Just like standing up to a bully can be described as "Kicking a hornets nest". The West in general has been shockingly complient in sucking up to Middle-Eastern countries, often at Israel's expense, for the last 100 years. What Trump did was stand up and be counted. 

The Iranian deal was a pathetic peace of moral cowardice. A much better solution would have been to force them NOT to develop nuclear weapons, initially by sanctions, but ultimately by bombing their uranium refinement sites. It's the only language they understand. You'll notice that they accidently revealed - in their reaction to the US pulling out - that they had been building up centrifuges in breach of the agreement ? 

As for "Christian Zionist" influences in the White House; I'm sorry, but I don't see that. There ARE many Christian Zionists in the White House. But there are several Jews, Muslims and, for all I know, Pastafarians there as well. Lots of people queue up to try and influence the President. But the Iran deal - and the Embassy move - can be easily explained without having to resort to theo-political conspiracy theories ? 

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, however you opinion is not very valuable because you have nothing to back it up with. Until you can back up your comments about the Trump Administration and the influence of Christian Zionism on US Foreign policy your comments serve no purpose because they are nothing but an opinion that holds no substance at all. If you noticed in that thread even andthen did not dispute the fact, and he is a Christian Zionist. 

Take Care my Friend 

[RoofGardener 17,393]

1 minute ago, Manwon Lender said:

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, however you opinion is not very valuable because you have nothing to back it up with. Until you can back up your comments about the Trump Administration and the influence of Christian Zionism on US Foreign policy your comments serve no purpose because they are nothing but an opinion that holds no substance at all. If you noticed in that thread even andthen did not dispute the fact, and he is a Christian Zionist. 

Take Care my Friend 

My apologies, @Manwon Lender: I overlooked that, and will rectify it immediately. 

Donald Trump is NOT a  Christian Zionist. (unless there is money in it ??  )

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

25 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

My apologies, @Manwon Lender: I overlooked that, and will rectify it immediately. 

Donald Trump is NOT a  Christian Zionist. (unless there is money in it ??  )

On that we agree, but he is VP Mike Pence's Puppet. The only reason he was elected in was 2016 was directly due to the Christian Vote, and that was because of Mike pence. That is why Pence was chosen as Trumps running mate, if it wasn't for Pence and the Christian support he brought with him Trump would have lost the election. Trump is currently surrounded by Christian Zionists, there is Pence, Pompeo,  and possibly Bar along with his Christian Zionist religious advisers, Since trump took office no decision made concerning the Middle East or Israel specifically, was made by President Trump, Pence and Pompeo controlled all the decisions concerning those areas of the world, while Trump got the Praise or The Negative comments they sat back in the Back ground and stayed quit.

When Trump started his election campagne  in 2016, he was introduced to Pence, where Pence told him the support he could provide. He then introduced Trump to the Heads of the Christian Zionists, Evangelic, and the basic Christian organizations, Trump thought it was a great idea so he sold his soul to the devil. However, during the 2020 election Christian support for his was cut almost in half, many Christians would no longer support a man who Spoke to Women like he did, who had been involved in the thief of money from his Charity, and especially the kind of man who had multiple Accusations of sexual Assault against him. Those Christians had enough so they voted for Biden, and that along with the large number of black votes sank Trumps ship.

Take Care, we can agree to disagree on this subject my friend!!

[and then 47,302]

18 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I haven't read the whole of Lt Col Goodwyn's article, but I WOULD criticise his historic viewpoint of the arab/israeli conflict. In particular, in the section relating to the history of the conflict. 

That's because he's just a well-paid mouthpiece for the cause.  The irony for the hair-on-fire types who see CZs and Joooos as the lurking menace, is that Biden's crew will go full Obama on Israel, and part of that will be becoming a Cuck for the Mullahs.  THAT, in turn, will actually strengthen Israel's willingness to close ranks with the Arab states that KNOW who their real enemy is.  And it AIN'T the Jooos, regardless of what their Mafiosa holy man said in his book.  The Persians are their ancient enemy and would crush them again if allowed to.  

[RoofGardener 17,393]

20 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

On that we agree, but he is VP Mike Pence's Puppet. The only reason he was elected in was 2016 was directly due to the Christian Vote, and that was because of Mike pence. That is why Pence was chosen as Trumps running mate, if it wasn't for Pence and the Christian support he brought with him Trump would have lost the election. Trump is currently surrounded by Christian Zionists, there is Pence, Pompeo,  and possibly Bar along with his Christian Zionist religious advisers, Since trump took office no decision made concerning the Middle East or Israel specifically, was made by President Trump, Pence and Pompeo controlled all the decisions concerning those areas of the world, while Trump got the Praise or The Negative comments they sat back in the Back ground and stayed quit.

When Trump started his election campagne  in 2016, he was introduced to Pence, where Pence told him the support he could provide. He then introduced Trump to the Heads of the Christian Zionists, Evangelic, and the basic Christian organizations, Trump thought it was a great idea so he sold his soul to the devil. However, during the 2020 election Christian support for his was cut almost in half, many Christians would no longer support a man who Spoke to Women like he did, who had been involved in the thief of money from his Charity, and especially the kind of man who had multiple Accusations of sexual Assault against him. Those Christians had enough so they voted for Biden, and that along with the large number of black votes sank Trumps ship.

Take Care, we can agree to disagree on this subject my friend!!

I think you are right there. AFter all, everything you have stated about Trump, Pence and Christian Zionism is pure speculation.  

Notwithstanding; how does that relate to the peace treaties ? 

Edited November 30, 2020 by RoofGardener

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

8 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

I think you are right there. AFter all, everything you have stated about Trump, Pence and Christian Zionism is pure speculation.  

Notwithstanding; how does that relate to the peace treaties ? 

Speculation: Your comments that are not based upon facts: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. 

Facts: Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

In the case of the Israel-UAE deal, the purpose was to provide the illusion that Kushner’s Mideast "deal of the century"  had somehow already materialized, lending political capital to an increasingly unpopular Donald Trump ahead of the U.S. election, while also shoring up Netanyahu’s political fortunes. 

For Trump and Netanyahu, it was a chance to present themselves as Middle East peace makers. For Mohamed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, it was another attempt to boost the prospects of two allies who had supported his own hawkish regional ambitions.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-real-peacemaker-this-week-was-qatar-not-uae-here-s-why-1.9119874?v=1606724704051

 

[RoofGardener 17,393]

22 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, however you opinion is not very valuable because you have nothing to back it up with. Until you can back up your comments about the Trump Administration and the influence of Christian Zionism on US Foreign policy your comments serve no purpose because they are nothing but an opinion that holds no substance at all. If you noticed in that thread even andthen did not dispute the fact, and he is a Christian Zionist. 

Take Care my Friend 

 Ooookay then. Well, you suggest that the moving of the Embassy to Jerusalem was the influence of Christian Zionists ? So then, you think that the bulk of the 1995 congress was Christian Zionist ? Because they voted overwhelmingly for the move ? (95% yes). 

It is quite conceivable that some of President Trump's decisions might align - to a greater or lesser extent - with the Christian Zionist agenda. And some will not. And some will align with a Pastafarian agenda. Or the agenda of The American Dehydrated Onion and Garlic Association But the thing is.. those decisions where taken for other reasons. The alignment is purely co-incidental.  (actually, the embassy move MIGHT have been a sop to his christian supporters, but then... it had already been decided by congress 15 years ago, so it was hardly a big deal ? ). 

[RoofGardener 17,393]

1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Speculation: Your comments that are not based upon facts: Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition. 

Facts: Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

In the case of the Israel-UAE deal, the purpose was to provide the illusion that Kushner’s Mideast "deal of the century"  had somehow already materialized, lending political capital to an increasingly unpopular Donald Trump ahead of the U.S. election, while also shoring up Netanyahu’s political fortunes. 

For Trump and Netanyahu, it was a chance to present themselves as Middle East peace makers. For Mohamed bin Zayed, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, it was another attempt to boost the prospects of two allies who had supported his own hawkish regional ambitions.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-the-real-peacemaker-this-week-was-qatar-not-uae-here-s-why-1.9119874?v=1606724704051

 I see. And the UAE was complicit to all this, was it ? 

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

52 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

 Ooookay then. Well, you suggest that the moving of the Embassy to Jerusalem was the influence of Christian Zionists ? So then, you think that the bulk of the 1995 congress was Christian Zionist ? Because they voted overwhelmingly for the move ? (95% yes). 

It is quite conceivable that some of President Trump's decisions might align - to a greater or lesser extent - with the Christian Zionist agenda. And some will not. And some will align with a Pastafarian agenda. Or the agenda of The American Dehydrated Onion and Garlic Association But the thing is.. those decisions where taken for other reasons. The alignment is purely co-incidental.  (actually, the embassy move MIGHT have been a sop to his christian supporters, but then... it had already been decided by congress 15 years ago, so it was hardly a big deal ? ). 

Yes the moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem was Foriegn Policy that was propagated by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who are both Christian Zionists. President Trump is nothing but a puppy and he has been one since he elected, all Foriegn Policy decisions concerning the Middle East are made by the two heros above.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jan/11/trump-administration-evangelical-influence-support

Significants of the US Embassy move to Jerusalem and why the date 05/23/2018 was chosen

http://www.ibaness.org/bnejss/2018_04_03/03_Fildis.pdf

[Manwon Lender 16,403]

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

 I see. And the UAE was complicit to all this, was it ? 

The UAE wasn't complicit at all they are nothing Pawns being moved the big chess board. However, they will bennifit because of the economic exchange, but that is the only thing that of any bennifit to them. This entire peace Deal was nothing but Smoke and Mirrors, by legitimizing the UAE Peace Plan, it will make it easier to deal with Palestinians however they choose. The more Arab Nations they have formalized relations with the lees opposition when they occupy lands that are controversial And are actually part of the lands that were agreed upon during the Palestinian Peace process.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103606/1/usappblog_2020_01_31_trumps_long_awaited_middle_east_peace_deal_is.pdf

Now my friend it is your turn to back your opinions with articles or other written information to support your views. If you choose not to do this, our conversation ends right hear.

Take Care Roofy

[RoofGardener 17,393]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Yes the moving of the US Embassy to Jerusalem was Foriegn Policy that was propagated by Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who are both Christian Zionists. 

What, in 1995 ? With a 95% approval from congress ? 

[RoofGardener 17,393]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

The UAE wasn't complicit at all they are nothing Pawns being moved the big chess board. However, they will bennifit because of the economic exchange, but that is the only thing that of any bennifit to them. This entire peace Deal was nothing but Smoke and Mirrors, by legitimizing the UAE Peace Plan, it will make it easier to deal with Palestinians however they choose. The more Arab Nations they have formalized relations with the lees opposition when they occupy lands that are controversial And are actually part of the lands that were agreed upon during the Palestinian Peace process.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/103606/1/usappblog_2020_01_31_trumps_long_awaited_middle_east_peace_deal_is.pdf

Now my friend it is your turn to back your opinions with articles or other written information to support your views. If you choose not to do this, our conversation ends right hear.

Take Care Roofy

Have you READ the terms of the Abraham Accords ? There is nothing there (directly) about economics: it is all about exchange of ambassadors and political recognition. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel–United_Arab_Emirates_normalization_agreement

Umm... what do you mean when you say  "lands that were agreed upon during the Palestinian Peace process" ? What peace process ? The only one that I can recall that dealt with land where the Oslo accords, which the PLO privately betrayed from day one, and have subsequently repudiated, nullifying any claim on land that might have been implicit in them : 

[and then 47,302]

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

 I see. And the UAE was complicit to all this, was it ? 

How DARE you question the evidence!    Netanyahu might be hiding under the OP's bed at this very moment