White House dismisses Israeli TV report on ostensible US peace proposal — which also details fate of settlements, but not of Gaza or refugees — as unfounded speculation

ed note–‘unfounded speculation’–Maybe, maybe not. Trump has kept the details of his Ultimate Peace Deal very close to the chest, but the fact of the matter is that he is surrounded by spies, saboteurs and traitors, and since finding out just what the details of this ‘peace deal’ are right now is of PRIME importance to Jewry (so that they can begin the operations in scuttling it) it is somewhere between possible and probable that someone on the inside of the Trump WH may have blabbed.

Now, assuming that the info presented in this piece is correct, the first thing apparent is that it is rational, and, at least in the here-and-now, fair. Does it deal with the past injustices suffered by the Palestinians? Of course not. But does it remove from the equation the mechanism by which the Jews have for decades and up to the present day murdered Palestinians with impunity just to get their genocidal kicks? Yes.

Now, naturally, on command and on cue, the Palestinian leadership is going to pitch a fit over this and reject it in toto, just as Israel needs them to do in order to create the ‘right mood’. Doubtless as well that millions of Palestinian supporters the world over will add their own voices of protest to this, listing the ‘right of return’ and a laundry list of other violations that have taken place since before 1947 as to why this ‘deal’ must be rejected, and all the while this is taking place, Netanyahu, Bennett, Shaked, Livni, and the rest of the gang will be toasting each other with Manischewitz and shouting ‘l’chaim’ over the fact that once again, all the background scenery which Israel needs to continue on with her infernal agenda was expertly crafted and expertly placed and that it was the useful idiots themselves who did all the work necessary in slitting their own throats and providing the blood which the vampire will be drinking.

In underscoring how much the intransigence on the part of those in the Palestinian community who are rejecting Trump’s peace deal is based upon emotionalism rather than on practicality, please consider the following scenario–

Imagine for a moment a giant army made up of Syrians, Hezbollah, Iranian Revolutionary Guards and volunteers from all over the Islamic world, armed to the teeth with heavy armor (tanks), attack helicopters, etc, comes marching over the border, runs the Jews out of 85-90 percent of the West Bank (the same paradigm being proposed by Trump) and creates an impenetrable military line separating the feral Jews and their hapless Palestinian victims. The liberators set up a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem and stand guard with an itchy trigger finger, ready to mow down whatever rabid Judaic dog from the IDF dares even cast a GLANCE eastward.

As a result of all of this, the daily carnage of innocent men, women and children ends and the Palestinians are then free to begin the long and arduous process of rebuilding their broken lives and are afforded their rightful place within the community of nations like everyone else.

The ‘liberators’ would be welcomed as heroes and cheered in every corner of the Arab/Muslim world, despite the fact that nothing was done to right the wrongs of the land theft that originally took place and where no ‘right of return’ was addressed, and anyone agitating that the Palestinians–for reasons of principle or whatever–run the liberators out, thus opening the floodgates for the Jews to return and to resume what they were doing and what it is that they do best–theft and murder–would be summarily executed for treason.

But yet, sadly, this is the very scenario which Trump is likely to propose and which the Palestinians and their supporters around the world are likely to reject to the thunderous applause of Jewry worldwide.

Times of Israel

The Trump administration’s Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal provides for a Palestinian state in 85-90 percent of the West Bank, with the sovereign capital of Palestine located in “most of the Arab neighborhoods” of East Jerusalem, an Israeli TV report claimed Wednesday.

Based on what it said was information conveyed by a participant at a recent briefing by “a senior American,” the Channel 13 news report specified that the so-called “deal of the century” provides for Jerusalem to be divided, with Israel maintaining sovereignty in west Jerusalem, parts of east Jerusalem and the “holy basin,” including the Old City and its immediate environs. However, it added that the “holy basin” area would be “jointly run” with the Palestinians, Jordan and possibly other countries.

The White House dismissed the story as unfounded speculation. “As in the past, speculations regarding the peace plan are inaccurate. We have no further reaction,” it said in a statement quoted by Channel 13.

In addition to the 85-90% of the West Bank coming under Palestinian sovereignty, the Trump administration will reportedly also propose various land swaps — enabling Israel to extend its sovereignty into unspecified areas of the West Bank, in exchange for current Israeli territory. Channel 13 news (the new iteration of what until Tuesday was Channel 10 news) said the scale of such land swaps was not yet clear.

Regarding settlements, the TV report said major settlement blocs would be annexed to Israel. “Isolated” settlements — it named Yitzhar and Itamar as examples — would not be forcibly evacuated, but would also not be allowed to expand, and would thus be “dried out.” Outposts defined as illegal under Israeli law would be evacuated.

The report made no mention of the plan’s proposals regarding Palestinian refugees, nor of the intended fate of the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

It said the Americans anticipate that the Palestinians will reject the proposal in its current form; Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority has been boycotting the Trump administration since President Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in December 2017.

It said that the administration expects Israel, by contrast, to say yes to the proposal.

The TV report noted that the proposal would not be publicly unveiled until after Israel’s goes to the polls on April 9.

The reported terms of the accord, the TV report assessed, are not as good as those offered by Israel to the Palestinians, without success, by prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by contrast, has ruled out full Palestinian statehood in the foreseeable future though he has in the past expressed conditional support for a two-state solution. He has also insisted on Israel maintaining overall security control of the West Bank, has rejected the notion of dividing Jerusalem, and has said no settlements will be evacuated.

In rare public comments on the Trump plan last October, Jason Greenblatt, the president’s special envoy for international negotiations, told The Times of Israel in New York that the proposal “will include a resolution to all of the core issues, including the refugee issue, and will also focus on Israel’s security concerns.” In fact, Greenblatt added, the proposal will “be heavily focused on Israeli security needs.”

“But we also want to be fair to the Palestinians. We have tried hard to find a good balance. Each side will find things in this plan that they don’t like. There are no perfect solutions,” he added.

Those comments came soon after Trump, in a September 26 meeting with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, for the first time publicly expressed his preference for a two-state solution, though he later clarified that he would back any framework that Israelis and Palestinians agreed on.

At the time, a senior US administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Times of Israel that Palestinians should see Trump’s comment about his preference for a two-state solution “as an opportunity to start engaging with us” but that the administration would release its peace plan “even if the Palestinian leadership does not talk to us.”

“We think the Palestinian people deserve to see it and decide if it is the right path forward. They certainly should not be prevented from seeing it and considering it. The reality is that we are trying to help them achieve a free society. A leadership that blocks this effort is the opposite of what it means to have a free society,” this official added.

As opposed to previous peace proposals, the current blueprint will be “very detailed,” the official added.

“Previous peace proposals were brief and vague, and no one really understood what exactly was meant by some of the terms used. We will present something that will give both the Israeli and the Palestinian people a concrete idea of what a peace deal could look like,” he said.

“It’ll be very specific so that they can tell their leaders what they think about it. In the end, we want people to think about whether our plan can make their lives better and is worth the compromises.”