'We did not return from 2,000 years of exile to agree to a Palestinian state. Not at any price are we willing to trade sovereignty over settlement'
ed note--once again, as we have counseled for many, many moons, read CAREFULLY the language being used, for as it is in most cases where Judea Inc speaks, the devil is in the details.
1. 'We did not return from 2,000 years of exile to agree to a Palestinian state.'
This is important for several reasons and on several levels, to wit--
a. According to the (forced) bill of sale offered to the Gentile West, the establishment of the 'State of Israel' was 'justified' on the basis of the Hollerco$t. The ethnic/religious/cultural cleansing that took place and which continues to this day punctuated by rivers of innocent Arab blood shed by the Jewish state was/is predicated upon the notion that because of what mean ol' Hitler did to the Jews that they earned the right to do the same to others in order to get their grubby, greedy hands on 'that land'.
However, the ugly truth of the matter is that the Jews only used the Hollerco$t as a selling point to what they had been planning--borrowing the same number figures issued by Yesha-- for '2,000 years', specifically since that moment when the Romans under Titus destroyed their country and drove them out warning them never to return under pain of death.
The long and short of it being--the creation of the Jewish state is about fulfilling the dictates of the Jewish religion as laid out specifically within the pages of the Torah, and it isn't about a small piece of real estate as it presently exists, but rather about a sprawling landmass lying between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, which brings us to the 2nd part of the statement above--
2. 'Not at any price are we willing to trade sovereignty over settlement'
Now, the one-dimension Gentile reader will assume that what Yesha is referencing here are 'the settlements' in the West Bank--
INCORRECTA-MUNDO.
What they are referencing here are those passages within the Torah talking about--again, not wanting to be unnecessarily repetitive--that sprawling landmass lying between the Nile and Euphrates rivers, and the fact that the Trump's 'peace deal' lays out SPECIFIC BORDERS for the Jewish state that SEVERELY LIMITS 'settling' that landmass lying between the 2 rivers is why Judea, Inc opposes the peace deal.
And, finally--
3. 'We cannot accept a plan that would include the establishment of a Palestinian state which would pose a threat to the State of Israel'.
Again, in the general sense, the Jews don't want to find their plans of invasion and conquest limited, but more specifically, 'Palestine' was the name given to the region after it was destroyed and occupied by the Roman Empire, and for a 'Palestinian' state to exist is a tacit surrender to the fate of history which the Jews cannot and never will accede, and thus, why there is this organized effort on the part of Judea, Inc to see DJT, POTUS removed from office before he can proceed as much as one millimeter in imposing Pax Americana on the region.
Times of Israel
The Yesha Council umbrella group of settler leaders announced on Tuesday that it would oppose US President Donald Trump’s peace plan, hours before the White House was slated to unveil its details.
“We are very troubled,” said Yesha Council leader and Jordan Valley Regional Council Chairman David Elhayani in a statement after meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu along with someone he referred to as a senior US official.
“We cannot accept a plan that would include the establishment of a Palestinian state, which would pose a threat to the State of Israel,” he said.
“We will also not allow for the establishment of a Palestinian state, even if that means giving up on enacting sovereignty in Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley [for now],” Elhayani added, acknowledging that the White House peace plan would allow for Israel to annex parts of the West Bank.
“We call on the prime minister and members of Knesset not to accept a comprehensive agreement within which a Palestinian state can be established in any form,” he concluded.
The Yesha Council, which is made up of 24 mayors of Israeli municipalities in the West Bank, had held off on making an official statement until Tuesday, with senior members saying they wanted to wait for the plan to be presented before judging it.
Evidently though, they received enough information from Netanyahu and US officials to come out against it hours before the 12 p.m. (EST) unveiling.
However, the mayor of the Ariel city-settlement in the northern West Bank issued a statement of his own blasting the Yesha Council position, saying it was released before all members of the umbrella group were consulted.
Breaking with his West Bank mayoral colleagues, Shaviro called on Netanyahu to accept the plan, saying he could live with a demilitarized Palestinian state on 70% of the West Bank, which has widely been reported to be what the Trump plan will offer.
Moreover, he asserted that the Palestinian Authority will reject the proposal as Ramallah has long vowed to do and that Jerusalem accepting it now would allow Israel to move forward with plans to immediately annex parts of the West Bank.
“I and other heads of municpalities in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] believe that this was an irresponsible statement [issued by Yesha],” Shaviro said in a statement.
Speaking to The Times of Israel, the Ariel mayor rejected the claims of other settler leaders, who argued that agreeing to the plan would mean a principal acceptance of a Palestinian state, allowing it to become the basis for all future negotiations. “It’s been the starting point in talks for decades,” he pointed out.
The prime minister had sought to warm the settler leaders to the idea of a Palestinian state that would be heavily curbed, several of the leaders who were present at a sit-down with Netanyahu in Washington told The Times of Israel earlier Tuesday.
“He tried to sell us on the idea that it wouldn’t really be a Palestinian state,” said Elhayani.
Countless media reports in recent days have purported to reveal details of the deal which is widely believed to be the most generous offer — from Israel’s standpoint — that any American administration has ever drafted. A settler leader who spoke to The Times of Israel last week said the so-called Deal of the Century would endorse Israeli sovereignty over all West Bank settlements.
However, Netanyahu told settler leaders on Monday evening that it would likely also include the establishment of a Palestinian state in roughly 70 percent of the West Bank, but that such an entity would be demilitarized, have no control over its borders and would be largely non-contiguous.
Elhayani did not buy the premier’s argument. “Who are we to tell a sovereign entity not to have an army or not to have an airport?” he asked rhetorically.
Netanyahu had invited Elhayani, along with Efrat Local Council Chairman Oded Revivi, Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Yisrael Gantz and Gush Etzion Regional Council Chairman Shlomo Ne’eman, to join him in Washington to receive updates in real time regarding the contents of the White House discussions on the peace deal.
The Jordan Valley mayor spoke to The Times of Israel at 3 a.m. local time, saying he was unable to sleep because he was worried about the plan, which he deemed “horrible for settlements.”
Elhayani speculated that Jordan would force the Palestinian Authority to accept the plan.
“There’s a lot of money being offered here,” he said.
Ne’eman expressed similar anxieties. He recognized that the state being offered to the Palestinians would come with a significant deal of caveats, but still called the proposal “extremely risky.”
Moreover, he argued that it would be better to hold off on annexing parts of the West Bank and oppose the Trump plan if accepting it would mean agreeing to a Palestinian state.
“That is something you can never walk back, whereas you can always enact sovereignty over settlements a year or two from now,” Ne’eman told The Times of Israel.
We did not return from 2,000 years of exile to agree to a Palestinian state. Not at any price are we willing to [win] sovereignty over settlement
