US says ‘prepared to recognize’ Israeli annexation of parts of West Bank

US says ‘prepared to recognize’ Israeli annexation of parts of West Bank
State Department says Washington ready to approve ‘sovereignty and the application of Israeli law’ in some areas, but calls for Israel to negotiate further with Palestinians


By TOI staff Today, 3:39 am 9
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israel, September 10, 2019. Netanyahu vowed to annex the Jordan Valley and, later, all West Bank settlements if he wins national elections. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israel, September 10, 2019. Netanyahu vowed to annex the Jordan Valley and, later, all West Bank settlements if he wins national elections. (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)



The United States said Monday it was ready to recognize Israel’s annexation of parts of the West Bank but asked Israel’s government to also negotiate with the Palestinians.
“As we have made consistently clear, we are prepared to recognize Israeli actions to extend Israeli sovereignty and the application of Israeli law to areas of the West Bank that the vision foresees as being part of the State of Israel,” a US State Department spokesperson said when asked if the US would allow Israel’s new government to move forward with the process.

The step would be “in the context of the Government of Israel agreeing to negotiate with the Palestinians along the lines set forth in President Trump’s Vision,” the spokesperson told The Times of Israel.


“The annexation would be in the context of an offer to the Palestinians to achieve statehood based upon specific terms, conditions, territorial dimensions and generous economic support. This is an unprecedented and highly beneficial opportunity for the Palestinians,” the State Department spokesperson said.
The Trump peace plan unveiled earlier this year — which angered the Palestinians and was rejected by much of the international community — gave Israel the green light to annex settlements and the strategic Jordan Valley area.
The Palestinians have refused to negotiate with the Trump administration, considering it biased. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas threatened on Wednesday to cancel all agreements with Israel and the US if Israel moved forward with annexation plans.
AP_20042568499996-e1581444740899.jpg

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas during a Security Council meeting at United Nations headquarters, February 11, 2020. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig)

Monday’s comments by the State Department expanded on remarks to reporters Wednesday by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said annexation was ultimately “an Israeli decision.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that he was “confident” US President Donald Trump would let him fulfill his election promise to apply Israeli sovereignty over parts of the West Bank “a couple of months from now.”
“Three months ago, the Trump peace plan recognized Israel’s rights in all of Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu said, referring to the West Bank by its biblical name. “And President Trump pledged to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the Jewish communities there and in the Jordan Valley.”
“A couple of months from now, I’m confident that that pledge will be honored,” Netanyahu said.
According to the wording of the “emergency government” deal between Netanyahu’s Likud party and Benny Gantz’s Blue and White faction, starting July 1, 2020, Netanyahu “will be able to bring the agreement reached with the US on the application of sovereignty [in the West Bank] for the approval of the cabinet and or the Knesset.”
In addition, “the law will be passed as quickly as possible… and will not be disrupted or delayed by the chairmen of either the House or the Foreign Affairs and Defense committees.”
The Netanyahu-Gantz deal stipulates that any Israeli action would need US backing, and must take into account Israel’s peace treaties with neighboring Jordan and Egypt, the only two Arab states that have formal peace treaties and diplomatic relations with Israel.
The prospect of annexation has recently drawn international condemnation.
The Arab League plans to hold an urgent virtual meeting this week to galvanize opposition to the annexation plan, and Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi reportedly approached counterparts in a number of countries including Russia, Germany, Egypt, Japan, Sweden and Norway to oppose the outline.
Senior officials in the European Union and United Nations on Thursday warned Israel against the intention to annex parts of the West Bank, with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell saying that such a move “would constitute a serious violation of international law.”
Meanwhile, in a video briefing with the Security Council, which holds a meeting each month on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the UN Middle East peace envoy, Nikolay Mladenov, said an Israeli annexation would deal a “devastating blow” to the internationally backed two-state solution, and “close the door to a renewal of negotiations and threaten efforts to advance regional peace.”
Netanyahu’s right-wing base is eager to move forward with annexation while the friendly Trump administration is in office.
Israel captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six Day War. The Palestinians seek those territories as part of a future independent state. Annexation of West Bank settlements would infuriate the Palestinians and Israel’s Arab neighbors.


 
Aren't a lot of Palestinians semitic? I thought they were basically just muslim Trump's Chosen People native to the region, whereas a lot of Israelis are khazar/sephardic/ashkenazi in addition to being Trump's Chosen Trump's Chosen People. Granted, while I can appreciate Abby's milkers, I'm not exactly a one of Trump's Chosen People connisour.
semitic is just a linguistic grouping

i do know that many palestinians are mixed. the problem is their mindset, no one really cares about their ethnicity.

the khazar theory is a myth. ashkenazi jews are basically italian/roman (because of the conquest and whatnot) and levantine. sephardic jews are from spain/morocco, they're more levantine than ashkenazis. mizrahim never left the middle east.
 
A bunch of Jews versus a bunch of inbred sand-barbarians? Yeah, going to side with the Jews here.

>arabs, who are native to arabia, colonize the whole middle east
>actual natives to judea reclaim their land
>REEEEEE
Weren't you talking about how Jewish identitarianism is a lie like a week ago?
 
there were always je.ws living there, even before the foundation of modern israel.

also. there wasn't even a 'palestinian' identity until after all the wars against israel were lost by the attacking arabs. the people who identified as palestinians were mostly rebellious jordanians and egyptians (who their home countries didn't want). you should look up "black september" and the wall that egypt built to keep gazans away, lol.

Who gives a fuck what their identity was? That suddenly means they weren't there? And don't play games about the Mizrahi Jews; they were a minority even in the Holy Land and they weren't who Israel was built for. It was built for the Ashkenazi who migrated from Europe and America, people who hadn't been in the holy land for over a millennium. It's a goddamn European colony.
 
Who gives a fuck what their identity was? That suddenly means they weren't there? And don't play games about the Mizrahi Trump's Chosen People; they were a minority even in the Holy Land and they weren't who Israel was built for. It was built for the Ashkenazi who migrated from Europe and America, people who hadn't been in the holy land for over a millennium. It's a goddamn European colony.
most jews in israel aren't even ashkenazi lol
 
most Trump's Chosen People in israel aren't even ashkenazi lol

I looked it up and it would seem you're right, there are slightly more Mizrahi + Sephardi than Ashkenazi. But anyways, to clarify my stance, I believe that Israel was a bad idea to create from a moral standpoint, but I think it has a right to exist now and is generally preferable to the Palestinians.

Giving some group of people (Ashkenazis, Sephardis, Jews who had basically no genuine connection) a chunk of land that a large population of a foreign culture and religion lived on for centuries because "muh scriptures say its ours" is r'etarded, and nobody would have extended that privilege to anybody OTHER THAN them. They got it because fuck the Palestinians, J'ews are Chosen People of the Bible (that we Christian Westerners follow), so they're more important than them. Fuck 'em!

Now, the Israeli has been a better steward of the land than the Palestinian ever would have been, and the Israeli has been acting in self-defense from pretty much day one. But that doesn't change that the Palestinian's land was violated. Whether he would have made as nice a place to live or not, whether or not the Israelis would have treated him as an equal, whether he called himself a Palestinians, Arab, Jordanian, or anything else, his wishes were trampled over so that a bunch of White people from Europe and America who speak European languages could go settle his land and rule him. How is that different from a colony? How is that different from when the English or French or Germans do it?

Now, when you inhabit a land long enough, you eventually get a claim to it. It's a subjective thing, but I think it happens somewhere between a generation and a saeculum. When a person has grown up from birth to adulthood in a land and never known anything else, he has a stake in there (which is also my argument for anchor babies). When the last of the settlers, or the last of the displaced people dies, likewise they've lost their stake; they don't really have a legitimate claim. That's why the Indians don't have a legitimate claim to the United States anymore. A Cherokee out in Oklahoma has no connection to Appalachia. And a Celt up in Ireland has no claim to France (Roman Gaul). Or a Greek has no claim to Turkey. These things happened so long ago that they ceased to matter.

When the Israelis came in, they came in after a claim that had expired some two thousand years ago. Their claim had expired in every way except for religious, which if you're not a Jew, you shouldn't give a shit about. But now they've been dug in there for sixty years, so it's too late.

So the Israelis and the Palestinians have to tolerate each other, but I don't think it's fair to blame the Palestinians for hating their colonizers.
 
there were always je.ws living there, even before the foundation of modern israel.

also. there wasn't even a 'palestinian' identity until after all the wars against israel were lost by the attacking arabs. the people who identified as palestinians were mostly rebellious jordanians and egyptians (who their home countries didn't want). you should look up "black september" and the wall that egypt built to keep gazans away, lol.
Identities form very fast. Just look at Taiwan.
 
The issue here is that the idea that the Arab conquests meant the Arabs living in Palestine had no business being there is stupid on many levels.

A) The initial Arab conquest of Palestine came.in the 7th Century

B) The reconquest from the Crusaders came in the 12th and 13th Centuries, which one may recall is long enough ago the "English" nobility were still decidedly French, the Lithuanians were still pagan, and The Aztec Empire hadn't yet been started.

C, and most important) The people living in what became Israel weren't a bunch of Bedoin transplanted from the Arabian desert. Much as the French are not Romans, and yet speak a decended form of Latin, there is significant continuity of population from ancient times. After all, in New Testament times, the Jews spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew, outside of religious contexts. Would you argue that they were no longer Jews, but Assyrians? What of the Jews, Samaritans, and other Canaanite peoples who converted to Christianity or Islam in the many Centuries between the Flavian sack of Jerusalem and 1948? Do they not count as "worthy" to live in that area because they responded to cultural, religious, and linguistic changes?

TLDR only very stupid people believe that the language one speaks defines one's heritage. Nigras aren't from Merry old England, and most of English isn't from Britain.


So we are left to ask, who *does* have a right to what they own? I think the only intelligible answer is "those who manage to defend it." If you want the West Bank, Palestinians, try not losing it to a bunch of kikes.

EDIT: Ah, yes. Negrate me for reading books instead of burning them.
 
Last edited:
So we are left to ask, who *does* have a right to what they own? I think the only intelligible answer is "those who manage to defend it." If you want the West Bank, Palestinians, try not losing it to a bunch of Trump's Chosen People.
It's one thing to lose territory in an armed conflict. It's another to continue to lose more in (relative)peace time to hook-nosed tricks and dirty deals. Otherwise I like your post and would subscribe to your newsletter
 
Which kind though

Faggy rapist Greek Gods? Complicated Etruscan numinous gods? Based Celtic Wicker Man human sacrifice?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman
Christian reconquest of Northwestern Europe when?
*Pagan please
I'd honestly go for either of these, as long as the Christians aren't pussies or Papists, and as long as the Pagans aren't faggy hippies or Wiccans.

Something with fire in the blood, something that wouldn't roll over and suck the cock of hostile forces because we're all children under God or some idiotic bullshit like that.
 
It's one thing to lose territory in an armed conflict. It's another to continue to lose more in (relative)peace time to hook-nosed tricks and dirty deals. Otherwise I like your post and would subscribe to your newsletter
You mean like in Gaza when the Israelis packed up their shit and left completely then HAMAS rounded up all the local Fatah leadership and yeeted them then initiated a rocket campaign that's been going on for the last 15 years?

It's a dirty deal and hook-nosed trick to depart occupied lands, clearly.
 
I actually kind of agree with this. Not as an Israeli land grab, but as a consequence of the Palestinians fucking around for so many decades with the peace process. When you are on the losing end of a War, the terms for peace do not and should not get better the longer you wait and continue the conflict. Dimplomacy and the road to peace requires both carrot and stick. The Palestinians in any negotiations are only ever presented with carrots. Nobody ever enforces “settle now, the deal only gets worse from here”. Which is what needed to happen 30 years ago.
 
Arabs who were actually fucking living there when hordes of Trump's Chosen People rolled up
Trump's Chosen People who hadn't lived there since Ancient times

Gee, who is the rightful claimant?

The ones to whom God gave the Promised Land under his Covenant
 
  • Like
Reactions: snailslime
Back