As if on cue, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates dismissed details of the peace plan announced on Tuesday by U.S. President Donald Trump. Right away, they jumped on positions set forth in the 180-page document aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—or at least, to jump-start the process into action.
“The United States can bring unequaled leadership to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we must use that leadership to promote a just and durable agreement. Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple U.N. resolutions,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump’s so-called ‘peace deal’ doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.”
“Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it,” tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
“This president’s Mideast ‘Deal of the Century,’ like so much else he’s done in foreign policy, makes complex situations worse. Peace requires both parties at the table. Not a political green light to the leader of one for unilateral annexation,” tweeted former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
“A peace plan requires two sides to come together. This is a political stunt that could spark unilateral moves to annex territory and set back peace even more. I’ve spent a lifetime working to advance the security & survival of a Jewish and democratic Israel. This is not the way,” tweeted former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a more measured, though critical, reaction.
“A negotiated two-state solution is critical to Israel’s and the Palestinians’ long-term security and well-being, and it is good that President Trump’s plan affirms that,” he said in a statement posted on his Twitter page. “Every peace plan deserves a chance, but any viable plan requires buy-in from both sides, and over the past three years, the President has done nothing but hurt the U.S.’s position as an effective broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As this process unfolds, it is critical that neither party take unilateral steps that could trigger instability and violence.”
(JNS)
{Matzav.com}
The “Occupied” West Bank is territory that Transjordan stole after defeating the new state of Israel in the War of Independence. Now that Israel has controlled it for more than fifty years since defeating Jordan in the Six Day War, it’s “Occupied Territory” that belongs to “Palestinians”? Why?
The hysteria the liberals have reacted towards this plan with would be more appropriate towards a threat of war than a negotiable peace plan.
It must be good if the Dems oppose it.
A peace plan requires negotiations between the two parties blah… blah… blah…
Truthfully I agree with that sentiment but let’s point out then no one ever heard these people say such things when the shoe was on the other foot and it was Obama or Clinton pressuring Israel to make one sided concessions and take risks for peace. Or any other imitative that required Israeli concessions but no Palestinian ones that were presented without Israeli input. Let alone negotiations between the two sides.
And there have been many such proposals.
“The United States can bring unequaled leadership to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we must use that leadership to promote a (1)just and durable agreement. (2)Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple U.N. resolutions,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders
Does he not get the irony and realize how contradictory (1) and (2)are, or does he just not care?