Middle East Peace – USA Gov Policy

The Israeli-barred visit by two first term U.S. congresswomen, Freshmen Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Muslim women elected to Congress, has sparked increased debate over the Palestinian issue. Talib and Omar, who are virulently anti-Israel, sought to achieve a public relations coup by their intended provocative trip to the Jewish State.

They sought to raise opposition to both the Netanyahu government, and the Trump Administration’s efforts to produce a peace plan. The Trump administration recently held a “Peace to Prosperity Workshop” in Bahrain, attended by both Israelis and representatives of Arab states. Arab nations, now more concerned with Iranian expansionism than the ongoing Palestinian issue, have been more open to dealing with Israel. Clifford May quotes Bahraini Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed Al Khalifa: “Israel is part of this heritage of this whole region historically. So the Jewish people have a place amongst us.”

The actual roadblock is the fault of the leadership of the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas leads the “State of Palestine” and has been chair of the Palestine Liberation Organization since 2004. He has refused to negotiate with Israel or the U.S., and is locked in a bitter feud with other Palestinians. In that refusal, he is following in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat, who was Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization from 1969 to 2004 and President of the Palestinian National Authority from 1994 to 2004.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA) / reports that “…at least three times the Palestinians have refused statehood when it was offered to them… n 2008, after extensive talks, then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and presented a comprehensive peace plan… In the summer of 2000 US President Bill Clinton hosted intense peace talks at Camp David between Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat and Israeli leader Ehud Barak, culminating in a comprehensive peace plan known as the Clinton Parameters… Despite the vast concessions the plan required of Israel, Prime Minister Barak accepted President Clinton’s proposal, while Arafat refused, returned home, and launched a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians (the Second Intifada)… UN Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, passed in November 1947, called for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in the land which at that point was controlled by the British-run Palestine Mandate. All the Arab countries opposed the resolution, voted against it, and promised to go to war to prevent its implementation. Representing the Palestinians, the Arab Higher Committee also opposed the plan and threatened war, while the Jewish Agency, representing the Jewish inhabitants of the Palestine Mandate, supported the plan.”

The Palestinian question has been fraught with historically incorrect arguments.

A History News Network notes:

“Historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine. There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time. Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled ‘the Jewish Wars,’ the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines… the historical record says that Palestine was never a country, and was rarely ever an intact entity. At most it was a geographic entity like Scandinavia but, even as that, it changed over time…None As the penis gets erect the arteries and veins in the penis become robust and it canada in levitra http://www.slovak-republic.org/living/ cuts down the supply of the blood out bringing the member back to its original size. This medicine is not formulated cialis online no prescription for men with impotence. Even if you have insurance, a doctor’s visit is seldom free, and most insurance companies won’t cover the cost of the prescription, leaving the burden on the consumers. tadalafil without prescriptions Blueberry, strawberry, and prices cialis raspberry antioxidant drinks are worth checking out. of this is meant to deny that Palestinians have a just claim to the land—or that Jews have a just claim to the land. There has always been only one practical solution to the problem of two peoples claiming the same land—the two-state solution. But many people seem surprised to learn that this solution was invented by neither President Clinton nor President Bush nor President Obama. The two-state solution has a long history dating back at least to 1937, when the British proposed to partition the land between Arabs and Jews while leaving Jerusalem under international control. A similar plan was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1947, and then again proposed by President Clinton in 2000. The great irony is that the leadership of the Arabs of Palestine consistently rejected the two-state solution in the belief that they could have everything; the result was that they ended up with nothing… The real stumbling block to the creation of a Palestinian state are Palestinians—Hamas, in particular—who cannot bring themselves to accept a state that doesn’t comprise all of ‘historic Palestine.’ Tragically, the recent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas means there will be no two-state solution—and no peace agreement.”

Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for the Defense for Democracies writes “The Six-Day War of 1967 was a second attempt to use military force to vanquish Israel. When the fighting halted, Gaza and the West Bank, territories that had been occupied by Egypt and Jordan respectively, were in Israeli hands. That presented a new opportunity. The Israelis could attempt what Egypt and Jordan had not: establishing a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, a so-called ‘two-state solution.’ In exchange, Palestinians would only need agree to peacefully coexist with their neighbor. The Arab League promptly issued the Khartoum Resolution, the ‘Three No’s’: no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.’ “The Israelis persisted. Deals were proposed in 2000, 2001 and 2008.The Palestinians were offered more than 90% of the West Bank. Each time, the Palestinians – or at least those who led them – declined. No counteroffers were presented.

“Yet another opportunity: In 2005, Ariel Sharon, then Israel’s prime minister, withdrew every Israeli soldier and farmer, every synagogue and cemetery, from Gaza. If Gaza became a peaceable neighbor, expending its energies and foreign funds lifting its people from poverty, a deal on the West Bank would follow. You know what happened next: Hamas went to war – literally, not figuratively – with Fatah, its rival. Hamas prevailed, which is why Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas dares not set foot in the territory.

Hamas then turned its guns, missiles and, more recently, terrorist tunnels and incendiary kites on Israel. This was in line with the Hamas Charter which calls for Israel to be annihilated and replaced by an Islamic emirate. Hamas views its struggle against Israel as a jihad. To compromise would be a sin – literally, not figuratively.”

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]