Why Trump's 'Deal of the Century" will fail

(Last updated: February 3, 2020)


On January 27, 2020, US President Donald Trump presented a much-advertised "Peace Plan" Trump has named, 'The Deal of the Century'. It's an ambitious Plan. One indication of its ambitiousness is the curious fact that, out of all Peace Plans ever presented to solve the Arab-Israel conflict (since 1948), this is the only one to present an actual, geographical  map of how the Plan  would play out "on the ground" (here). Apparently, no other plan, not even the  most recent (2013) 'John Kerry' Plan, contained a map (ibid). 

As I understand it, this Plan would give to a new Palestinian state some 70% of the West Bank (Judea-Samaria), mostly involving what is currently called 'Areas A and B', which are already under Palestinian control (ibid). This new map seems designed to disrupt current Israeli-controlled areas as little as possible--something that might well be another innovation of this Plan.

Clearly, a lot of thought has gone into this idea. Will it be accepted?

Well, in Israel at least, this Plan will be debated. As with all past 'plans', it aims to change the 'status quo' for both sides. As time unfolds --and if you follow this Israeli debate--you'll learn why Israel will be divided over it.

In the end, however, it won't matter what Israelis conclude--or do--about the Plan. Yes, Israelis will certainly vent their passions over it. But that venting will be nothing more than an empty exercise. It will be wasted energy.

It will be wasted energy because the Palestinians will never  say yes to it--ever.  Palestinian leader Mahmmoud Abbas has said all along--since the end of December 2017-- that this deal is dead. He's said all along it didn't matter. He's said all along he was rejecting it, sight-unseen.

Even without looking at details, he understood that this Peace Plan wasn't for him a deal at all. It was a slap in the face (here). 

From his point of view, Abbas is 100% correct. This deal is stillborn for Abbas and his followers because it would mean the end of the Palestinian dream. Abbas will never say 'yes' to a Plan that wouldn't just end the Palestinian Cause (here). This Plan, Abbas has said, "aims to liquidate [my emphasis] the Palestinian cause (sic)" (ibid).

This Abbas-led hostility to peace is what all Peace Planners for the Arab-Israel have always missed or chosen to miss. Abbas--and his predecessor, Arafat--have never wanted a state to call their own, 'to live side-by-side with Israel in peace and security'. The "Palestinian Cause" is not about just statehood. It's about a new state that replaces Israel, a state that would take over all of modern Israel and wipe the Jewish state off the face of the planet.

To see this truth, all you need to do is look at another map--that of Palestine as envisioned by  the Palestine Cause:




(courtesy of palwatch.org)


This picture immediately above is the Palestine envisioned by Abbas (standing on the left in this picture, holding the frame). It's a map of Israel, with Arabic text on it, that renames Israel as 'Palestine'. 

Abbas knew from the very beginning of Trump's administration that the Trump Peace Plan would never do Abbas's bidding and convert Israel into 'Palestine'. For Abbas, this Trump Plan is no different from all other Plans: It's just one more reprint of the West's silly desire to create a two-state solution for this conflict. 

Abbas doesn't want a two-state solution. He's never wanted a two-state solution. He wants one-state solution--an Arab-Muslim nation that sits on top of a destroyed-and-replaced Israel--a 'Palestine' similar to what you see above.

That is the Palestinian dream--to replace Israel with a Muslim 'Palestine'. That dream is the essence of  the 'Palestinian Cause'. 

Therefore, any Peace Plan that ignores this Palestinian vision for nationhood is automatically 'dead on arrival'. Such a Plan is useless. It doesn't bring Abbas peace--or fulfill the Palestinian dream. Instead, it "liquidates" the Palestinian Cause--because the Palestinian Cause isn't about peace. It's about conquest. 

To the West, a "Peace" Plan is an attempt to avoid or end war. Put another way, peace is about "liquidating" the need for war. 

That's not Abbas' idea of Peace. His idea of Peace is a Region with no Israel, anywhere.

This is why Trump's Plan will fail. It leaves Israel intact. It won't satisfy the Palestinian dream.

More questions about Benny Gantz's fitness to be Israel's Prime Minister

I have already written about the question of Gantz's fitness to be Israel's PM (see "Has Benny Gantz just proven he lacks  the skill to make competent political decisions?", below, December 31, 2019). In that essay, I questioned his ability to choose competent enough advisors for him to become Israel's leader. Now, a new report surfaces that again raises this same question--for the exact same reason.

As you may  know, Benny Gantz was in Washington, DC yesterday, January 27, 2020. The purpose of this trip was to meet with US President Trump just before Trump was scheduled to announce details of his "Deal of the Century" Peace Plan for Israel and 'Palestine'. Current Israel PM Benjamin Netanyahu was there, too--but not at the same time. Each man vying in the March, 2020 national election in Israel to be Israel's next PM got his own session with Trump to hear privately about the Peace Plan's details. 

So far, there's nothing obviously wrong with any of this. What is wrong is Gantz's apparent inability--once again--to choose close advisors who are politically competent. The latest person to raise this issue, inadvertently, of course, is a "close" Gantz advisor, Ronen Tzur. Tzur, we have been told,  had accompanied Gantz to Washington for this visit (here).

Apparently, Tzur is what some might call a potential "political hand grenade" right next to Gantz. If that 'political hand grenade' goes off, Gantz could be finished. 

What did Tzur do? Well, here's a short list of some of what Tzur has done:

-In March, 2016, Tzur twitted about Trump that, "Trump's next book: Mein Trumpf".

-In May 2017, Tzur wrote, “The most surprising thing about Trump is only one thing was leaked to the Russians until now.”

-In July, 2017, Tzur wrote: “Tonight at the White House: The Elimination Episode.” [The Hebrew word for 'elimination' is the same as 'impeachment' (sic)].

-In August, 2017, he referred to Donald J Trump as "Donald Adolf Trump".

-In May, 2018, he tweeted, “2 approaches to leadership now clashing fiercely: Obama and Clinton’s psychological approach and Trump and Putin’s psychopathic approach.”

Tzur never deleted these tweets (ibid). The inference is, he came to Washington with them still up--and visible for anyone to see.

If Gantz is to serve as Israel's next PM, will he be well-served by such an advisor? Certainly not, if Gantz wishes to have a good relationship with the current US President.

To lead Israel successfully, Gantz needs to know how to interact with foreign leaders. He especially needs to know how to interact with leaders from the planet's most powerful nations. Insulting those leaders, or bringing on a visit to such a leader those who do that insulting for Gantz (for that will be the inference taken), doesn't win friends. It doesn't influence any sitting foreign leader for the better. 

Can Israel afford such a leader? 

Unfortunately, Tzur wasn't finished with insulting others. He kept it up from Washington. Apparently, some members of Likud reacted badly to these tweets about Trump. Two hours before the Trump-Gantz meeting took place, and in reply to criticism from Likud members, Tzur labelled such followers of Likud as 'cult members'. He wrote, "“Seeing that some members of the cult have gotten overexcited at some tweets from past years I will clarify: There were certain issues that I thought differently about from the president" (ibid). 

Clarification for Tzur: 'thinking differently' about 'certain issues' isn't the same as calling Trump, Donald Adolph Trump, or using such language as Mein Trumpf, or 'Trump behaves like a psychopath'. 'Thinking differently' isn't even in the same league as these insults. If Tzur doesn't understand the difference between 'differences', versus slanderous--or, perhaps, even hate-speech--what's he doing at the ear of a potential Prime Minister?

For that matter, what's he doing in Washington, DC with that potential leader? A t the very least, leave such a man at home.

 Yes, at the same time that Tzur trashed Likud followers, and just minutes before the Trump-Gantz meeting, Tzur did praise Trump (ibid). But such praise doesn't erase the unerased anti-Trump slurs from 2016, 2017 and 2018. Indeed, compared to the earlier insults, such praise right before a meeting with Trump just makes Tzur look like a hypocritical boot-licker.

Is this the kind of advisor Gantz surrounds himself with? Worse yet for Israel, what does such a choice tell us about Gantz?

Remember, Tzur is a political confidant of Gantz. Unlike you or me, he has Gantz' ear. He's important enough to travel to Washington with Gantz. 

What is someone like this doing so close to a potential Israeli leader? 

In the US, many, many people who refer to Trump using this language above are Leftists. They promote an anti-capitalist, anti-border, anti-religion, anti-Trump and pro-Socialism agenda. Is this what Ronen Tzur believes? 

More important for Israel's voters, is this what Gantz himself believes? Is this why Gantz has Tzur traveling with him?

What is Tzur--and his beliefs--doing with Gantz in America? We don't know.  But his tweets raise questions: Does Tzur suggest with his political insults what will be Gantz' secret agenda--an anti-Trump, pro-Socialism agenda for Israel?

How, exactly, will that look for Israel? Well, Gantz hasn't spoken about any of this. He hasn't laid out the plans he will bring to Israel. Does Tzur now speak for him? Certainly, we actually know next to nothing about Gantz' plans for Israel--other than, Netanyahu-man-bad-Netanyahu -must-go.

Is this enough to elect him our leader?

This is what make Tzur's slander so frightening. It makes us realize how little we know about Gantz' ideas and ideology. Does Tzur inadvertently reveal the political realities that are close to Gantz' heart?

More important for all of us who will vote in March, 2020, is this the kind of anti-Trump, anti-capitalist  belief-structure Israel wants to vote for?

Once again (as with the episode reported in the December 31, 2019 essay), we see a Gantz advisor force us to ask if Gantz is really the 'best man' to lead the world's only Jewish state. After all, between now and at least the end of 2021, Israel has some treacherous waters to navigate. Israel will need to travel upstream against strong currents in the UN, the EU, a potentially hostile US Congress, a hate-mongering Iran, rockets at Israel's Northern--and Southern--borders, potential fallout from international economic anti-Israelism, a potential ICC war crimes tribunal set up against Israel, and pressure from a growing Russian interest in increasing its influence in the Middle East. People like Ronen Tzur aren't going to help Israel with such challenges. People like Tzur could, in a single, unguarded instant, seriously undercut--or even destroy--any positive understanding Israel has--or will have--developed with a foreign power.

Israel's voters need to think very hard about what they'll get with a Gantz-led Israel. So far, Gantz does more to cut off his nose despite his face than to enhance his standing in the world. Is the man Israel needs right now?

Is this why Trump has been impeached?

As I have previously suggested to my readers, since I now live in Israel, I try not to get involved in US politics. But the US drive to impeach US president Donald Trump is so historic an event, I cannot stay away from this event. It's simply too big to ignore, no  matter where I live.

I'm sure you know the basics of this impeachment. I won't rehash anything. But I do want to offer the occasional comment from afar. Perhaps distance provides some perspective.

I realize some of my readers could be offended by what I will say. After all, one doesn't have to live in Washington, DC to understand how passions about Trump run high--very high. I hope my readers will not abandon me over this issue. I hope you remain loyal to this blog.

Here's a comment about this Trump impeachment process: in the US Senate impeachment trial now unfolding, the US House of Representatives has seven 'Managers' whose job it is to serve as 'prosecutors' against Trump. If I understand matters correctly, these seven Managers will today, Friday, January 24, 2020, finish presenting the Democratic case against Trump. These seven Representatives, all Democrats, all chosen specifically by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), include: Jason Crow (D-Colorado), Val B. Demings (D-Florida),  Sylvia R. Garcia (D-Texas), Hakeem Jeffries (D-New York), Zoe Lofgren (D-California), Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) and Adam Schiff (D-California) (here). 

According to one source, US Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), three of these seven US House Managers in the Senate impeachment trial (some 42+ percent of the House 'Prosecutors') voted against lethal aid to the Ukraine--and these same three (Nadler, Jeffries and Lofgren) now lead the call to impeach Trump for, arguably, simply delaying the same lethal aid which they themselves refused to send? (here). Indeed, what's worse, delaying aid because of Ukraine's recent past history of corruption--or voting against it altogether? 

What's going on here? Is this why Trump is being impeached--over a policy dispute? 

Certainly, some have believed that, during December's House impeachment hearings, several anti-Trump 'witnesses' (few of whom had any face-to-face interactions with Trump, never spoke to Trump, but condemn him for impeachable offences anyway) were actually arguing that they condemn Trump because they, the professional diplomats, disagreed strongly with Trump's policy decisions (at least, that's the way it looked to some).  Is this the impeachable offense?

In the end, the impeachment Articles spoke specifically of Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. Obstruction of the Congress is a separate issue. But is this policy dispute over Ukraine the real reason behind Trump's alleged Abuse of Power?

Remember, at app 10:25 EST yesterday, Thursday, January 23, 2020, Representative Adam Schiff said that this President "needs to be removed [from office] because Trump chose Rudy Giuliani over his own intelligence agencies and national security advisers" (here). Schiff then added, "that makes Trump dangerous" (ibid).

Really? Dangerous? A President does not have the power to send special envoys on special missions? Plus, if a President does use such envoys, he can be removed from office?

Really? How many times have other US Presidents used special, even private, envoys? A hundred times across American history? A thousand times?

Democrats claim no, no and no, again. That's not the reason for this impeachment. They say Trump's Abuse was his effort to influence a foreign leader to get for Trump dirt on a potential political opponent (Joe Biden). But was Trump's interest in a potential Biden-Ukraine connection just about a potential political opponent--or about real corruption in a place that had been one of the most corrupt countries in the world; a corruption that could have included the-then US Vice President (Biden and his family members) working behind the scenes?

More to the point, if what Schiff said, above, is not the point for impeachment (that Trump needs to be removed because he didn't rely on his own advisers, etc), then why make that remark? How does it relate to 'Abuse of Power'? If Schiff is saying that such a remark is in fact related to 'Abuse of Power', is such a connection legitimate? 

Does Congress really want to create a basis for the impeachment of a President that will literally tie the hands of all future Presidents? What is the message here--that a President cannot choose his own foreign policies, and cannot choose whom he wishes to perform delegated tasks?

Has Congress become this stupid? Something is wrong here.

Very wrong.

Here's a video. About Trump. From 1980. Dare you watch it?

(Last update: January 15, 2020. includes a title change)


Over the years I've been writing, I've developed an informal rule: stay away from US politics. True, I haven't always adhered to this rule. But it does influence what I choose to write about.

I believe that for the better part of the last two years, I've been pretty faithful to this rule. So far as I can remember, I've published little, if anything, about US politics during this time-frame.

You can confirm that by digging deeper into my blog posts, below. What I've written is not hidden. It's part of the blog's historical record.

Today, I will break this rule. I will show you a video about Donald Trump--from 1980, when he was 34 years old. A friend sent it to me from a Facebook entry they had found. It's less than 4 1/2 minutes long. 

You might say that I post this interview not for a political purpose, but for historical perspective. Perhaps it puts Trump-the-man into an historical context. Perhaps that context could be important.

Please note that Trump in this interview references Iran and the 'hostages'. He is referring in this interview to 52 Americans who were taken hostage by Iran, in Iran, in early November, 1979, eleven months earlier. At the time of this interview, October, 1980, those hostages had been held in captivity for something like 380 days. Iran didn't release them until January 20,1981, the very day the newly-elected US President, Ronald Reagan, was sworn into office. Iran held these Americans for a total of 444 days before their release.

One final point: no matter what your political position is vis-a-vis Trump, I think this brief interview excerpt is worth your time. 

What do you think?