Jared Kushner’s Middle East Peace Plan Doesn’t Seem Like It’s Going to Work Too Well

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
June 9, 2019

Jared Kushner’s Middle East peace plan doesn’t seem to be very peace-oriented.

I’m honestly not even sure why this is a thing. They can keep taking the land. No one is stopping them from taking the land. What is the point of saying “we’re going to do a peace plan”?

RT:

Tel Aviv has a right to annex certain parts of the West Bank, a US envoy to Israel said as Donald Trump’s much-touted Middle East peace plan was rejected by the Palestinians.

“Under certain circumstances,” Israel “has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank,” David Friedman told the New York Times in an interview published on Saturday.

For years, Israeli right-wing politicians had been proposing to formally annex parts of the West Bank containing Israeli settlements, which are illegal under international law. The Palestinians vehemently oppose this move, saying that it will render a two-state solution impossible.

During the re-election campaign in April, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu promised that Israel will annex the settlements sometime in the future. The US did not previously support these plans outright. But, speaking to the New York Times, envoy Friedman said that he does not want “to prejudge” Israel if it indeed extends its sovereignty to some portions of the West Bank.

His words come as Palestinian officials firmly rejected the peace plan brokered by President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his senior adviser and son-in-law. The plan, which is yet to be officially revealed, reportedly calls for splitting the West Bank, leaving “a smaller share” to the Palestinians.

The Palestinians, however, insist that any transfer of land to Israel is unacceptable. Mahmoud Abbas, the head of the Palestinian Authority, blasted Donald Trump’s plan, wishing it “go to hell.”

When Kushner was first talking about this, he was shilling a kind of “Greater Israel” agenda, where they would remove some of the restrictions on the Palestinians in the West Bank but increase Jewish influence.

He said he was going to eliminate borders.

That actually made some sense. I mean it did to me, because I know what Greater Israel is, but I can’t imagine it made sense to anyone else.

But allowing Palestinians freer movement, allowing access to Jerusalem, maybe even letting them have official government buildings there, and allowing them to keep some of their homes in exchange for tolerating Jews moving in is feasible, possibly, if they can stop terrorism without the current level of brutality and apartheid.

But just saying “oh we’re keeping the settlements, sorry” – this isn’t really a genuine attempt at a peace deal, and it just makes no sense why you would even be making it a thing.

Join the discussion at TGKBBS