
Israel and UAE reach historic peace deal, Israel to suspend annexation - omarhaneef
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/israel-and-uae-reach-historic-peace-deal-638524
======
jameslk
[https://apnews.com/abcb0ed9a84e2d3da7d87c28641ccc21](https://apnews.com/abcb0ed9a84e2d3da7d87c28641ccc21)

Another vantage point from the AP.

[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/israel-uae-
announce-n...](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/israel-uae-announce-
normalisation-relations-200813145645861.html)

And Al Jazeera for somewhat completeness.

~~~
sequoia
If that Al Jazeera article were on Wikipedia it'd (hopefully) get hit with
Weasel Words[0] complaints, at least in the lede.

> ...a deal slammed by the Palestinians who called it a "treacherous stab in
> the back".

Which Palestinians? _All of them?_

Further down:

> Hamas condemned the deal, which it said was a "treacherous stab in the back
> of the Palestinian people".

Ah... Hamas. The same Hamas whose original charter calls for Israel to be
destroyed, "invalidated" by Islam[1], whose officials as recently as last year
told Palestinians around the world: "You have Jews everywhere and we must
attack every Jew on the globe by way of slaughter and killing, if God
permits"[2] (he was later forced to walk this back–"how magnanimous" to quote
another comment ITT).

Shame on Al Jazeera for regarding an organization openly committed to genocide
of Jews and the destruction of Israel as the voice of "the Palestinians." I
suppose they think my local butcher here in Toronto (from Hebron) should kill
me and my family, because "the Palestinians" are directing him to do so. I'm
glad he chooses instead he gives my kids lollipops and be a standup guy and a
good friend, despite him being Palestinian and me being Jewish. Thank goodness
most of us don't listen to the sectarian warmongering promulgated by the likes
of Hamas & Likud and amplified by Al Jazeera & Fox News.

I consider Al Jazeera treating Hamas as the de facto voice of "the Palestians"
is an unfair treatment of a group (Palestinians) with diverse views. Saying
Hamas represents all of them is a vicious smear against this group of people.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Word...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Unsupported_attributions)
1:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#Statements_abou...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Covenant#Statements_about_Israel)
2: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-hamas-official-calls-
on...](https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-hamas-official-calls-on-members-
of-palestinian-diaspora-to-kill-jews/)

~~~
jameslk
Quite the diatribe, but just to clarify Al Jazeera is actually citing multiple
Palestinian sources for reactions in their article, not just Hamas.

~~~
sequoia
> a deal the Palestinians called a "treacherous stab in the back".

This direct quote they later attribute to Hamas, not multiple Palestinian
groups. What do you think the purpose of framing it in this way is? It seems
to me to be picking the most inflammatory statement from the most radical of
the prominent Palestinian political parties, amplifying it above all other
statements, and attributing it not to the political party in question but to
all Palestinians. If you read this differently I'd be very interested to learn
why you think this statement was put in the first sentence of the story only
to be clearly attributed pages in.

I'm not sure what the purpose of referring to my post as a diatribe is. If you
care to clarify I would appreciate it.

~~~
jameslk
I think a "treacherous stab in the back" (i.e. betrayal by the UAE) is an
accurate way to represent what's being said in these quotes:

> The Fatah movement said the UAE is "flouting its national, religious and
> humanitarian duties" toward the Palestinian cause.

> Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO)
> executive committee, said the UAE has "come out in the open on its secret
> dealings" with Israel.

Also, I believe it's fair to assume "Palestinians" in the article means the
parties/government that represent Palestine, not every individual Palestinian.
Especially not Palestinians that don't even live in Palestine.

------
11thEarlOfMar
Curious if the China/Iran deal had any influence on the timing of this. Iran
and UAE were recently in talks to strengthen relations [0], but Iran and
Israel/USA are long time adversaries.

It's an interesting twist.

[0]
[https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2020/8/10/why-...](https://english.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2020/8/10/why-
the-uae-seeks-stronger-ties-with-iran)

~~~
screye
It will be really interesting to see what stance India takes in this bipolar
US vs China world.

India has historically been a strong ally of Iran and Russia, but finds itself
precariously close to war with China, and with weakening ties to both Iran and
Russia. India has also been a strong ally of Israel's and recently has
improved its relations with the other middle eastern nations.

It is clear that every sign points towards the US alliance for India, but the
political brass still can't completely shed the socialist and even communist
cloth some of them were cut from, despite 1991 and everything that came after.

India needs to stop blindly following in the footsteps of the thinly veiled
Non-Aligned Movement championed by Nehru. It is a bipolar world, neutrality
might as well be a death knell.

~~~
free_rms
That's an awfully dark take. Why is it in India's interest to be a piece on
the board for the US, Russia or China?

Non-Aligned seems to match their actual interests. They're big enough that
they don't have to be anyone's proxy state.

~~~
screye
Because Non-aligned (NAM) was more or less a lie. India was strongly oriented
towards USSR, all while never committing strongly enough to actually get
legitimate support. It was also naively ideological, in a "if we play nice, so
will everyone else".

India allowed China to get their own UN security council seat on the idea of
NAM, all while China itself blocked India's entry into the UNSC.

In 1965, India received zero support from either sides, while being pressured
by the same UN to withdraw troops despite having gained massive ground in
heavily settled parts of Pakistan. Even Indonesia, India's closest NAM ally
and co-founder, supported Pakistan in the war.

Every time India has tried to take the moral high ground, it has come out of
it in a poorer position.

India can't stay non-aligned while Chinese and Pakistani leadership keep
claiming more and more land (Tawang, Junagad, etc) within Indian borders. It
can't rely on tacit support from this paper tiger super power Russia or an
Iran that is headed towards becoming a Chinese proxy.

For some reason, India is expected to bear the weight of being the moral
compass of the world, all while the same world continuously disparages it for
being a discriminatory and backward nation led by a fascist leader. (some
accusations are admittedly well placed)

Being an ally doesn't mean, India has to be a proxy state. Japan, South Korea,
UK or France aren't American proxy states, but are American allies. It simply
means to seek relationships where interests align. To pretend that India is
non-aligned is to pretend that India does not have interests.

~~~
selimthegrim
The last "Pakistani" who cared about Junagadh was Shahnawaz Bhutto (Zulfiqar
Ali's father, not the son). And for a country who is a stickler about
instruments of accession I guess the rules get bent if you want to rebuild
Somnath.

~~~
screye
Pakistan updated their map last week newly claiming Junagadh as their land.

When it comes to partition itself, fair,clean and sensible are the last words
I would use to describe it. I maintain that the hasty exit set India and
Pakistan to be warring nations till the end of days.

That being said, the idea that any ruler of a princely state should have a
right to decide a regions fate is honestly quite weak. Almost all of India's
princes happily operated as proxies for British exploitation. Plebiscite would
have been the right choice for Kashmir as it was Junagadh. The eruption of
invading military forces (put lightly) in independent Kashmir never allowed
that plebiscite to ever happen, and for all we know, it never will.

~~~
selimthegrim
After change of demography in Jammu (which Patel and Mehrchand Mahajan went
about “anjan banke” no wonder they had shame to not ask Nehru for plebiscite)

------
newacct583
For clarity, because the distinctions are important to a lot of people: Israel
has agreed to suspend/delay the _process_ of annexation of West Bank land,
they haven't renounced the underlying claim. And there is no agreement to halt
the settlement-building process there.

~~~
helge9210
As israeli citizen I have to clarify: Israel never had a claim on West Bank.
Some political forces have. Currently it is under military occupation. There
is no internal consensus on this issue. Same goes for the settlements.

~~~
calcifer
.

~~~
LegitShady
Because after decades of trying to make peace and seeing the situation get
worse the general population of Israel no longer believes in feel good leftism
without some real world solutions. It's all well and good to be anti
occupation but then you see rocket production and launching capacity and Gaza
and have no interest in seeing that elsewhere.

~~~
newacct583
The problem with that logic is that it's not sustainable. Yes, terrible things
happen in Gaza (not so much the west bank) absent a working government and/or
occupying force.

At the same time, we're now going on the fourth generation of residents of
these territories who are born, live and die in a no-man's land. They aren't
citizens of any nation, they can vote for no government, they can't travel,
they can't start a business or hold anything but the most basic property. And
neither could their parents or grandparents. And neither will their kids.

The thread of rocket production is plausibly enough to justify a temporary
occupation while a better government can be constructed, etc... But the six
day war was more than a half century ago. At some point the excuses have to
end.

~~~
LegitShady
Gaza has a working government run by Hamas. Both Hamas and the pa in the west
bank have failed to hold their own elections and that is their fault not
Israel's - they can run elections etc. Their kids are being taught in school
to hate Israel and that Jews are evil funded by the United Nations. Every
generation will get more extreme under this tutelage.

There is not the threat of rocket production so much as there are both rockets
and rocket production already. You talk about the six day war but forget Hamas
shooting hundreds of rockeslts a day into Israel much more recently than that.

It's ok to say say its unsustainable. What is your solution ? Israelis are
tired of hearing that it's unsustainable without a solution. That's why the
left isn't getting elected. They have no solution, not even to what is going
on today.

~~~
newacct583
> What is your solution ? Israelis are tired of hearing that it's
> unsustainable without a solution.

I assure you the rest of the world is getting tired as well. But at the end of
the day, this isn't my problem to solve. It's Israel's. Eventually, the world
will get tired enough to act. It has in the past.

The reason it isn't a crisis for the rest of the world now is fundamentally
down to an odd quirk of the way voting demographics work a continent away in
the US. And... that actually looks very stable. But eventually something will
shift (hell, a Great Collapse of american influence seems not entirely
unlikely at this point), and Israel will feel pressure it's been insulated
from for the last 53+ years.

That's what "unsustainable" means.

~~~
LegitShady
>assure you the rest of the world is getting tired as well. But at the end of
the day, this isn't my problem to solve. It's Israel's. Eventually, the world
will get tired enough to act. It has in the past.

It is literally the least important it's ever been in terms of the world's
priority. What other people do you suggest will act? This deal is about Israel
normalizing relations with one of the countries that has pushed and paid for
the conflict for some time. This sounds like tough talk divorced from reality.

>The reason it isn't a crisis for the rest of the world

Is because it's a low intensity conflict that is expensive to deal with and
nobody has a solution that makes sense to both sides.

Banking on the collapse of America to push Israel is funny but not realistic.
This peace agreement is exactly because of fear of another obama style middle
East policy. This is the UAE and Israel getting together to make sure they can
counter whatever nonsense a democrat with Obama leanings starts to pull.

Everyone remembers the Iran deal and Obama's actions in the un at the end of
his last term. I promise you people in Israel are as capable of planning as
you are, and aren't relying on the fall of the us.

Declared unsustainable but still no solution from you - which is the same
reason people with your opinion can't get elected in Israel. Israel is much
more sustainable than Gaza but trying to go in to clean out Hamas is not
sustainabkr. There are a lot more issues of sustainability than you seem to
consider because you aren't considering real world geopolitics

------
ronanyeah
I spent some time in the region in 2017 (Gaza / West Bank / Israel), and it
was obvious to me that nothing would change for Palestinians until an Islamic
country was able to represent their interests through diplomatic relations
with Israel.

I think this is great news and I'm very excited to see where it leads.

~~~
dogma1138
You assume that any of the Arab countries care about Palestinians sadly
outside of the scope of the Israeli Arab conflict where they can be used as
pawns they don’t.

Even Jordan which 80% of its population is Palestinians doesn’t seem to care
much.

The next logical step is to actually allow Palestinians to gain refugee status
and removing UNRWA so the refugee camps might actually get some permanent
housing, utilities and countries like Lebanon and Syria would have to grant
them the same rights as any other refugee group.

~~~
amitport
80%? How do you define this statistic? From what I understand from Wikipedia
this seems to be around 20%

------
mattlondon
> Israel agreed to suspend its planned extension of sovereignty

How magnanimous of them.

------
ilstormcloud
Israel suspending its annexation is excellent for Palestine and very good for
Ethiopia. There are ongoing negotiations with Egypt and Sudan about the
Abay(Nile) River which is somewhat tense. Sometime ago Trump administration
wanted to mediate, which was accepted by all parties (with some reluctance)
but very quickly the mediator wanted to become an arbiter. The Trump
administration was perceived to favor the Egyptians. They tried to pressure
Ethiopia into making concessions which it was not prepared to do. The end
result was Ethiopia withdrawing from the US mediated effort and soured
relation between the two countries.

What a lot of people here(In Ethiopia) think is, the reason Trump Admin was
favoring Egypt's weak(er) negotiating position over Ethiopia and the other
Nile basin countries is, he and his administration wanted to secure Egyptian
support for the annexation of Palestinian territories.

If the annexation is off the table, USA will have a little less reason to use
its power to pressure Ethiopia into an unfavorable agreement.

Frankly, the whole US effort was quite absurd. USA was seen very favorably but
the rush to make Ethiopia the sacrificial lamb (to steal some poor people's
land) is something that will have a lasting negative effect.

This article provides some background of what's going on.
[https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/22/trump-administration-
af...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/07/22/trump-administration-africa-aid-
ethiopia-egypt-gerd-nile-sudan-dispute-negotiations/)

~~~
polotics
Sorry you got downvoted, one doesn't get a point of view from Ethiopia every
day, too bad yours was faded to gray.

~~~
ilstormcloud
You are very kind. Thank you!

------
markzqz
Wow this is big. I would bet that Saudi Arabia will get into this next.

------
pazimzadeh
This is not news if you've been paying attention, it's just PR before an
election. UAE has quietly been working with Israel quietly allied for years:

[https://theintercept.com/2017/06/03/hacked-emails-show-
top-u...](https://theintercept.com/2017/06/03/hacked-emails-show-top-uae-
diplomat-coordinating-with-pro-israel-neocon-think-tank-against-iran/)

~~~
shliachtx
Formalizing relations is certainly news. It seems they plan to establish
embassies, create direct flights, etc.

------
rowanseymour
What kind of peace deal about the future of Palestinians and Palestinian land
doesn't involve.. Palestinians? A skeptical person might think this is more
about PR for Netanyahu and Trump.

~~~
martythemaniak
Lisa: I'll stop buying Malibu Stacey clothing.

Bart: And I'll take up smoking and give that up.

Homer: Good for you, son. Giving up smoking is one of the hardest things
you'll ever have to do. Have a dollar. [gives a dollar bill to Bart]

Lisa: But he didn't do anything!

Homer: Didn't he, Lisa? Didn't he?

------
guykdm
As an Israeli, I'm ecstatic! UAE citizens - please come and visit Israel,
you'll be treated with Abrahamic hospitality and great respect!

~~~
Enginerrrd
Is this really true? I recall just 10 years ago a Jewish friend of mine
commented on how offended his Israeli guide was that he had bought and wore an
Arab head scarf while visiting Israel. That's from a TOUR GUIDE!

~~~
dternyak
I can't imagine why the tour guide would be offended – head scarves are by no
means out of place in Israel, or anywhere in the region. Many Israelis that I
know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger diplomatic ties (and with
that, peace) in the region. Israel has previously made big concessions for
diplomacy, like giving up the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in the Egypt–Israel
Peace Treaty.

~~~
Udik
> Many Israelis that I know are thrilled about the trend towards stronger
> diplomatic ties (and with that, peace)

And how do they feel about returning the territories they have illegally
annexed or occupied- the Golan heights, East Jerusalem and much of the West
Bank?

Because otherwise "peace" just means enjoying what you stole without fear of
consequences.

~~~
shliachtx
There are consequences to starting wars of aggression intending to destroy a
nation. One of those consequences is losing land if you lose the war.

~~~
Udik
It's a pity you just made this "rule" up, because the delivery was very
convincing.

No, such a rule doesn't exist. Seems more like "an eye for an eye" than any
form of civilized law.

------
IkmoIkmo
Not historic at all... better to see annexation being suspended than continued
of course, but let's not pretend this means much. The majority of the west
bank has been illegally occupied for almost 60 years. Nothing in the text
reverses any of that, it only appears to suspend Netanyahu's further
annexation plans he drew up just last year.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs that cancelling a single recent plan to
deteriorate an already illegal situation, is sufficient to be portrayed as
some kind of historic peace treaty.

At this point Netanyahu can propose some other nonsense plan during his
election cycle and win with the 'wartime president' bonus, then cancel them
afterwards during Trump's election cycle to give him an ostensible diplomatic
victory, while continuing the rest of the charade. The situation only gets
worse but people are supposed to applaud it? Give me a break.

~~~
googthrowaway42
"Illegal" means nothing in an international context. Who enforces the "law"?
What is the shared moral framework from which that law flows?

~~~
buran77
It does mean something and the demarcation line is whether the parties doing
it are allies or not. In this case "the West" is the reference point as within
this group there's usually a natural or if needed forced consensus on who's an
ally and who's the enemy. For example Russia annexing Crimea is widely
considered in the West _illegal_. [0]

Now whether you consider the historical claim of a state established by the UN
but with no support from the Arab world, one of the two parties that actually
mattered, over that party's land, and the numerous wars to expand further as
being legitimate compared to Russia's is an exercise left to the reader.

[0] [https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
releases/2020...](https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-
releases/2020/06/18/illegal-annexation-of-crimea-and-sevastopol-eu-renews-
sanctions-by-one-year/)

~~~
googthrowaway42
Again you're using the word illegal in a way that only makes sense within an
actual legal framework.

Allies have treaties, pacts, and unwritten norms. An ally cannot engage in an
"illegal" act, they can only violate a treaty, pact, or norm. There is no
legal framework because neither ally is sovereign over the other. In order for
you to fall under a legal framework there must be some entity that is
sovereign over you.

A citizen (or subject) of some sovereign does not have a "pact" or "treaty"
with the sovereign.

As an American citizen I do not have a pact or treaty with my municipal,
state, and federal government. They have sovereignty and therefore I am
subject to their laws.

~~~
buran77
> An ally cannot engage in an "illegal" act

But this misses my point. I didn't mean "illegal act between allies". I mean
the same act against a 3rd (independent) party will be judged as legal or
illegal based on whether the 2nd party committing it is friend or foe. Friend
bombs a hospital, they fight for freedom. Enemy bombs a hospital, they're a
terrorist.

The occupation/annexation is a similar topic. Russia and Israel committed some
of the same fouls but in the case of the latter it's a "matter of debate" that
never reaches a conclusion. That's because the West doesn't actually want to
set a precedent that it's OK. So it's like a never ending trial and as long as
that goes on everybody's free to go about their business.

You probably noticed by now that almost no leader explicitly approves Israel's
actions, they approve them implicitly by inaction. They always have vague
rhetoric which gives the appearance of support for some lofty, worthwhile
ideals without actually stating their support for the particular actions or
methods, and without making any connection between these and the
aforementioned ideals. Then it's left to you to map those words over the real
life situation and interpret that your own way. But I learned long ago that
what's not said speaks volumes more than what's said.

~~~
googthrowaway42
I see what you're saying and yeah I basically agree.

------
blisterpeanuts
Israeli and UAE teams will meet "to sign bilateral agreements regarding
investment, tourism direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology,
energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal
embassies, and other areas of mutual benefit."

This is exciting news, indeed. Israel, with its huge technology sector and UAE
with its massive financial resources could together work to transform the
Middle East.

The announcement alluded to future similar deals with other Arab countries.
Likeliest would be Saudi Arabia, another oil-rich moderate state that already
has informal back-channel relations with the Jewish state.

We shouldn't fool ourselves that this will bring peace in the region this
year, but it will certainly put a kink in Iran's expansionist/destabilization
efforts, and it will bolster the Trump Administration's prestige in the
region, pushing other countries to "fall in line" as it were and support some
kind of general framework for peace if not an outright full recognition of
Israel's legitimacy.

------
nine_zeros
Just the thought of countries and cultures coming together makes the future
look positive.

~~~
chmod775
These two cultures can't come together while staying the same, and both
countries consider their culture worth protecting.

I am not optimistic.

~~~
nine_zeros
Why is coming together same as eroding culture?

~~~
atomi
Ask Native Americans.

~~~
nine_zeros
This is not colonization. Connection of cultures is important for
civilizations to grow into the future.

------
lobo_tuerto
In case you need more context on the whole issue (as I did), here is a good
explanation that I found:

[https://www.vox.com/2020/7/13/21317900/israel-west-bank-
anne...](https://www.vox.com/2020/7/13/21317900/israel-west-bank-annexation-
palestine-netanyahu-trump)

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Any explanation for why parent comment was downvoted?

I don't have the background to discern if there's something amiss in the
referenced Vox article.

~~~
jaywalk
Vox is a garbage source for pretty much anything.

