vox--2020-01-28--How to delete what Facebook knows about your life outside of Facebook

Facebook users just got a new glimpse into — and a little control over — the myriad ways the social network tracks what they do when they ’ re not using Facebook .
If you didn ’ t already realize it , by the way , Facebook is tracking an astounding amount of what you do when you ’ re not using the platform , an activity also known as living life in the real world .
The new Off-Facebook Activity tool , which the company announced last August , finally launched on Tuesday .
It can tell you which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your real-world activity — for example , that you visited their website or purchased a product from it .
Why does Facebook want this ?
Because it can then match that information with your Facebook profile and target ads to you ( or , in Facebook ’ s words , “ personalize your experience ” ) .
A lot of times when you think Facebook is listening to your phone conversations based on how specific its ads are , it ’ s actually because of how extensive ( and hidden ) its offsite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is why you might see , oh , I don ’ t know , an ad for a play starring the venerable Kate Mulgrew immediately after a Star Trek : Voyager Netflix binge , even if you weren ’ t on Facebook at the time .
This is also what allows many websites , including Facebook , to give you free services .
So you are getting something out of this deal — you just might not have realized you were making the deal in the first place , or how much data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play was great , by the way . )
Accessing the Off-Facebook Activity tool to see how much Facebook knows about your life outside of Facebook is not exactly straightforward .
You can go directly to the tool by clicking here .
If you ’ re trying to find it from your News Feed , you ’ ll need to go to Settings and then click Your Facebook Information .
You should see a line for Off-Facebook Activity , and then just go to view .
Then prepare to be flabbergasted .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found that 518 apps and websites had shared her data with Facebook in some way : Many of the sites on her list were ones she had just visited .
That ’ s because a lot of sites use Facebook ’ s trackers , which automatically collect and send visitor data back to Facebook .
Even users with tracker-blocking extensions on their browsers will likely find dozens of instances where companies are sending personal data to Facebook .
The feature also allows you to opt out of some of this collection — to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s listing will bring up a dialogue that will give you a slightly more specific look at what data was collected .
There ’ s also the option to “ Turn off future activity ” from that company .
If you ’ re looking for a nuclear option , you can click “ Manage Future Activity ” and then flip the blue switch on the right side of the page .
This seems like it would turn off all real-world data collection , but that ’ s not exactly true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ ll see a dialogue that says , “ We ’ ll still receive activity from the businesses and organizations your visit.
” This information just won ’ t be associated with your account .
You can also delete your off-Facebook activity history by clicking “ Clear History ” on the activity list .
A window will then pop up asking you to click “ Clear History ” again : As the prompt says , you ’ ll still see ads — but they won ’ t be those creepy ads of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a different site .
If you don ’ t like the idea of your Facebook behavior being tracked and used for ads , you might also ( if you haven ’ t already ) want to change your ad settings on Facebook ( available in the “ Ads ” section of your Facebook settings ) .
Turn off “ Ads based on data from partners , ” “ Ads based on your activity on Facebook Company Products that you see elsewhere , ” and “ Ads that include your social actions.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shut off the tracking , but it will minimize it .
If you do n't like the idea of being tracked by Facebook at all , tough luck .
Even if you delete all of your accounts for Facebook-owned service , including Instagram and WhatsApp , it feels like there ’ s nowhere online or on earth that the social network can ’ t access .
At least Facebook is giving you some control over it .
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network .
All Open Sourced content is editorially independent @ @ @ @ @ @

Facebook users just got a new glimpse into — and a little control over — the myriad ways the social network tracks what they do when they’re not using Facebook. If you didn’t already realize it, by the way, Facebook is tracking an astounding amount of what you do when you’re not using the platform, an activity also known as living life in the real world.
The new Off-Facebook Activity tool, which the company announced last August, finally launched on Tuesday. It can tell you which companies are supplying Facebook with information about your real-world activity — for example, that you visited their website or purchased a product from it.
Why does Facebook want this? Because it can then match that information with your Facebook profile and target ads to you (or, in Facebook’s words, “personalize your experience”). A lot of times when you think Facebook is listening to your phone conversations based on how specific its ads are, it’s actually because of how extensive (and hidden) its offsite data collection is.
This in-depth tracking is why you might see, oh, I don’t know, an ad for a play starring the venerable Kate Mulgrew immediately after looking up Star Trek: Voyager episode guides, even if you weren’t on Facebook at the time. This is also what allows many websites, including Facebook, to give you free services. So you are getting something out of this deal — you just might not have realized you were making the deal in the first place, or how much data you were handing over. (The play was great, by the way.)
Accessing the Off-Facebook Activity tool to see how much Facebook knows about your life outside of Facebook is not exactly straightforward. You can go directly to the tool by clicking here. If you’re trying to find it from your News Feed, you’ll need to go to Settings and then click Your Facebook Information. You should see a line for Off-Facebook Activity, and then just go to view. Then prepare to be flabbergasted. One of our reporters, for example, found that 518 apps and websites had shared her data with Facebook in some way:
Many of the sites on her list were ones she had just visited. That’s because a lot of sites use Facebook’s trackers, which automatically collect and send visitor data back to Facebook. Even users with tracker-blocking extensions on their browsers will likely find dozens of instances where companies are sending personal data to Facebook.
The feature also allows you to opt out of some of this collection — to a point. Clicking on a particular company’s listing will bring up a dialogue that will give you a slightly more specific look at what data was collected. There’s also the option to “Turn off future activity” from that company. If you’re looking for a nuclear option, you can click “Manage Future Activity” and then flip the blue switch on the right side of the page.
This seems like it would turn off all real-world data collection, but that’s not exactly true. Right after you flip the switch, you’ll see a dialogue that says, “We’ll continue to receive your activity from the businesses and organizations you visit.” This information just won’t be associated with your account.
You can also delete your off-Facebook activity history by clicking “Clear History” on the activity list. A window will then pop up asking you to click “Clear History” again:
As the prompt says, you’ll still see ads — but they won’t be those creepy ads of a product you were just looking at on a different site.
If you don’t like the idea of your Facebook behavior being tracked and used for ads, you might also (if you haven’t already) want to change your ad settings on Facebook (available in the “Ads” section of your Facebook settings). Turn off “Ads based on data from partners,” “Ads based on your activity on Facebook Company Products that you see elsewhere,” and “Ads that include your social actions.” Again, this won’t completely shut off the tracking, but it will minimize it.
If you don't like the idea of being tracked by Facebook at all, tough luck. Even if you delete all of your accounts for Facebook-owned service, including Instagram and WhatsApp, it feels like there’s nowhere online or on earth that the social network can’t access. At least Facebook is giving you some control over it.
Open Sourced is made possible by Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-01-28--The Washington Post sure bungled its Kobe Bryant tweet controversy

It ’ s 2020 .
How come the Washington Post is screwing up at Twitter ?
That ’ s the rough paraphrase coming at me today from my colleagues and from Twitter .
Everyone wants to know why the Post has punished one of its reporters for tweeting about Kobe Bryant after his death Sunday .
My answer : It ’ s 2020 , and Twitter — really , all of social media — remains something that media companies of all stripes can and will screw up .
Because humans are messy , and social media , among other things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The situation won ’ t get better unless media companies ban their employees from using social media .
Which they ’ re not going to do .
You can get a full tick-tock on the Post/Bryant/Twitter story from my colleague Emily Stewart , but the tl ; dr is that the Post put reporter Felicia Sonmez on “ administrative leave ” after she tweeted in the wake of Bryant ’ s death on Sunday .
A slightly longer account includes the detail that Sonmez ’ s output included a link to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ charges Bryant faced in 2003 .
( The criminal charges were dropped in 2004 , and Bryant and his accuser reached an out-of-court settlement in 2005 . )
One of Sonmez ’ s tweets also included a screenshot of her email inbox , which was taken after sending out the tweet with the link about Bryant ’ s assault charges .
The tweets garnered thousands of replies , many of which were negative , before Sonmez deleted them .
As Stewart points out on Vox , one of the missives read , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself .
Cunt.
” Sonmez also got an email from Marty Baron , the Post ’ s executive editor , on Sunday evening .
“ Felicia , ” Baron wrote , according to an email obtained by the New York Times .
“ A real lack of judgment to tweet this .
Please stop .
You ’ re hurting this institution by doing this.
” The Post has since said that Sonmez ’ s output may have violated the Post ’ s social media policies , so it ’ s investigating that possibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but you won ’ t find instructions forbidding Post reporters from linking to other publications ’ stories or from posting evidence of people on the internet behaving badly .
The Post ’ s Erik Wemple reports that Sonmez , who checked into a hotel Sunday night after receiving death threats , says she was told that the initial problem with her tweets was that they didn ’ t concern her “ coverage area.
” Following her suspension , Sonmez told the New York Times , “ Because The Post does have policies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was tweet out a link to the story , ” she said .
“ I didn ’ t think it was my place to provide any further commentary.
” Like other media organizations that have posted social media policies , the Washington Post does tell its employees that when they tweet or Insta or whatever , those messages will be treated as official Washington Post tweets or Instas or whatever , no matter their original intent .
As with many other outlets , there is also this instruction : Don ’ t post @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as reflecting political , racial , sexist , religious or other bias or favoritism.
” This is one of those instructions that seems both obvious and impossible to enforce .
I hope I can avoid posting racist commentary .
But I most certainly have bias , and I definitely have favorites .
So do you .
More to the point — and your view of the world may be the same as mine — it ’ s ridiculous that the Post penalized its reporter for acknowledging that Bryant , in addition to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accused of rape .
( In a 2004 statement , Bryant ultimately apologized to his accuser “ for my behavior that night , ” adding that while “ I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual , I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.
” ) You may also see the world the way many other people do : You think the hours after someone ’ s death are not the time to speak critically of that person .
But the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have violated the company ’ s social media policy — but can ’ t say for sure if she has , a day after the tweets — is telling .
The Post ’ s guidelines , like those published by the New York Times , the Wall Street Journal , and other outlets , including Vox Media , amount to “ don ’ t screw up.
” Screwing up is the whole point of social media .
It ’ s a feature , not a bug .
Twitter , Instagram , Facebook , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to transmit your unmoderated , instantaneous thoughts to the world want you to screw up at least some of the time .
Social media invites you to say something you might not have said to someone ’ s face , or at least not without some foresight .
And while piling on the Post may feel good — again , I think a newspaper that can stand up to President Donald Trump can also protect a reporter who hasn ’ t published something defamatory — the Post certainly isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disciplining one of its employees for a tweet or apologizing for one of their tweets .
We can start close to home : Vox , for instance , suspended an editor in 2016 for tweeting that people should “ start a riot ” if Trump arrives in their town .
Last summer , the New York Times demoted an editor for displaying “ serious lapses in judgment ” when he tweeted about politics and race .
And in 2017 , the Wall Street Journal said it was sorry for a tweet about Venus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not white !
” — because it “ was seen by some as insensitive.
” Let ’ s not forget about publications that have had to apologize for what their employees did on social media before they came to work there .
The Times , in particular , stumbles on this one a lot .
In 2018 , it unhired an opinion writer once her old tweets surfaced and attracted negative attention .
Last year , a Times editor had to apologize for tweets he made in college .
The way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid worrying about journalists screwing up on Twitter is to ban them from Twitter and every other public forum .
These companies would also have to force all their journalists to retroactively delete everything they ’ ve ever posted — maybe someone tweeted something unkind about Bryant back when he was scoring 81 points in a single game , or whatever .
Or they could require the same kind of attorney-assisted vetting that the Securities and Exchange Commission has now forced Tesla ’ s Elon Musk to go through whenever he wants to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course , because every company that hires journalists wants its journalists to use those platforms , at a minimum as a way to promote their work .
Perhaps they also think it ’ s crucial to “ maintain a vibrant presence on social media , ” as the Times policy suggests .
And it ’ s true : Times reporters do great work on Twitter .
But as soon as people pick up the phone and start tapping , they are a couple of taps away from a screw-up .
Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that prospect — and , crucially , with the idea that not all screw-ups are equal , and that just because someone is angry about a tweet doesn ’ t make it a Bad Tweet , and you can let people complain about Bad Tweets without having to Do Something About the Bad Tweet .
Or they can bail out and leave Twitter to the rest of us .
Update , January 27 , 2020 , 7:15 pm ET : This post has been updated to include an email from Washington Post executive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quote from Felicia Sonmez .
Update , January 28 , 2020 , 5:40 pm ET : Felicia Sonmez is no longer suspended .
Washington Post managing editor Tracy Grant just released this statement : After conducting an internal review , we have determined that , while we consider Felicia ’ s tweets ill-timed , she was not in clear and direct violation of our social media policy .
Reporters on social media represent The Washington Post , and our policy states ‘ we must be ever mindful of preserving the reputation of The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and independence.
’ We consistently urge restraint , which is particularly important when there are tragic deaths .
We regret having spoken publicly about a personnel matter .

It’s 2020. How come the Washington Post is screwing up at Twitter?
That’s the rough paraphrase coming at me today from my colleagues and from Twitter. Everyone wants to know why the Post has punished one of its reporters for tweeting about Kobe Bryant after his death Sunday.
My answer: It’s 2020, and Twitter — really, all of social media — remains something that media companies of all stripes can and will screw up. Because humans are messy, and social media, among other things, is built to exploit that mess. The situation won’t get better unless media companies ban their employees from using social media. Which they’re not going to do.
You can get a full tick-tock on the Post/Bryant/Twitter story from my colleague Emily Stewart, but the tl;dr is that the Post put reporter Felicia Sonmez on “administrative leave” after she tweeted in the wake of Bryant’s death on Sunday.
A slightly longer account includes the detail that Sonmez’s output included a link to a 2016 Daily Beast article about sexual assault charges Bryant faced in 2003. (The criminal charges were dropped in 2004, and Bryant and his accuser reached an out-of-court settlement in 2005.) One of Sonmez’s tweets also included a screenshot of her email inbox, which was taken after sending out the tweet with the link about Bryant’s assault charges. The tweets garnered thousands of replies, many of which were negative, before Sonmez deleted them. As Stewart points out on Vox, one of the missives read, “Piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself. Cunt.”
Sonmez also got an email from Marty Baron, the Post’s executive editor, on Sunday evening. “Felicia,” Baron wrote, according to an email obtained by the New York Times. “A real lack of judgment to tweet this. Please stop. You’re hurting this institution by doing this.”
The Post has since said that Sonmez’s output may have violated the Post’s social media policies, so it’s investigating that possibility. You can find those policies here, but you won’t find instructions forbidding Post reporters from linking to other publications’ stories or from posting evidence of people on the internet behaving badly. The Post’s Erik Wemple reports that Sonmez, who checked into a hotel Sunday night after receiving death threats, says she was told that the initial problem with her tweets was that they didn’t concern her “coverage area.”
Following her suspension, Sonmez told the New York Times, “Because The Post does have policies governing these things, all I did was tweet out a link to the story,” she said. “I didn’t think it was my place to provide any further commentary.”
Like other media organizations that have posted social media policies, the Washington Post does tell its employees that when they tweet or Insta or whatever, those messages will be treated as official Washington Post tweets or Instas or whatever, no matter their original intent. As with many other outlets, there is also this instruction: Don’t post anything that could “objectively be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism.”
This is one of those instructions that seems both obvious and impossible to enforce. I hope I can avoid posting racist commentary. But I most certainly have bias, and I definitely have favorites. So do you.
More to the point — and your view of the world may be the same as mine — it’s ridiculous that the Post penalized its reporter for acknowledging that Bryant, in addition to being beloved by many people, was credibly accused of rape. (In a 2004 statement, Bryant ultimately apologized to his accuser “for my behavior that night,” adding that while “I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did.”)
You may also see the world the way many other people do: You think the hours after someone’s death are not the time to speak critically of that person.
But the fact that the Post says Sonmez may have violated the company’s social media policy — but can’t say for sure if she has, a day after the tweets — is telling. The Post’s guidelines, like those published by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets, including Vox Media, amount to “don’t screw up.”
Screwing up is the whole point of social media. It’s a feature, not a bug. Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and every other service offering the opportunity to transmit your unmoderated, instantaneous thoughts to the world want you to screw up at least some of the time. Social media invites you to say something you might not have said to someone’s face, or at least not without some foresight.
And while piling on the Post may feel good — again, I think a newspaper that can stand up to President Donald Trump can also protect a reporter who hasn’t published something defamatory — the Post certainly isn’t the only publication that has found itself disciplining one of its employees for a tweet or apologizing for one of their tweets.
We can start close to home: Vox, for instance, suspended an editor in 2016 for tweeting that people should “start a riot” if Trump arrives in their town. Last summer, the New York Times demoted an editor for displaying “serious lapses in judgment” when he tweeted about politics and race. And in 2017, the Wall Street Journal said it was sorry for a tweet about Venus Williams — which began with “Something’s not white!” — because it “was seen by some as insensitive.”
Let’s not forget about publications that have had to apologize for what their employees did on social media before they came to work there. The Times, in particular, stumbles on this one a lot. In 2018, it unhired an opinion writer once her old tweets surfaced and attracted negative attention. Last year, a Times editor had to apologize for tweets he made in college.
The way for the Times and other outlets to avoid worrying about journalists screwing up on Twitter is to ban them from Twitter and every other public forum. These companies would also have to force all their journalists to retroactively delete everything they’ve ever posted — maybe someone tweeted something unkind about Bryant back when he was scoring 81 points in a single game, or whatever.
Or they could require the same kind of attorney-assisted vetting that the Securities and Exchange Commission has now forced Tesla’s Elon Musk to go through whenever he wants to tweet.
That won’t happen, of course, because every company that hires journalists wants its journalists to use those platforms, at a minimum as a way to promote their work. Perhaps they also think it’s crucial to “maintain a vibrant presence on social media,” as the Times policy suggests. And it’s true: Times reporters do great work on Twitter.
But as soon as people pick up the phone and start tapping, they are a couple of taps away from a screw-up. Media companies should be able to live with that prospect — and, crucially, with the idea that not all screw-ups are equal, and that just because someone is angry about a tweet doesn’t make it a Bad Tweet, and you can let people complain about Bad Tweets without having to Do Something About the Bad Tweet.
Or they can bail out and leave Twitter to the rest of us.
Update, January 27, 2020, 7:15 pm ET: This post has been updated to include an email from Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron as well as a quote from Felicia Sonmez.
Update, January 28, 2020, 5:40 pm ET: Felicia Sonmez is no longer suspended. Washington Post managing editor Tracy Grant just released this statement:


vox--2020-01-28--How Iran’s Soleimani became a US target

How Iran’s Soleimani became a US target

On January 3 , 2020 , a US airstrike outside Baghdad , Iraq , killed several Iraqi and Iranian military @ @ @ @ @ was arguably the second most important person in Iran , Qassem Soleimani .
His killing @ @ @ @ @ huge demonstrations throughout the Middle East and an Iranian retaliatory missile strike on a US @ @ @ @ @ Soleimani became an immensely powerful figure by commanding Iran ’ s elite Quds Force , @ @ @ @ @ spies tasked with spreading Iranian influence outside of its borders .
They achieved this by @ @ @ @ @ throughout the Middle East .
At the time of his killing , Soleimani had orchestrated @ @ @ @ @ that stretched from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq .
This episode of Vox Atlas explains @ @ @ @ @ Force , how they use proxy militias , and how Soleimani took the strategy to @ @ @ @ @ can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
Subscribe @ @ @ @

On January 3, 2020, a US airstrike outside Baghdad, Iraq, killed several Iraqi and Iranian military officials. One of them was arguably the second most important person in Iran, Qassem Soleimani. His killing set off several days of huge demonstrations throughout the Middle East and an Iranian retaliatory missile strike on a US military base in Iraq.
Soleimani became an immensely powerful figure by commanding Iran’s elite Quds Force, a group of soldiers and spies tasked with spreading Iranian influence outside of its borders. They achieved this by partnering with and supporting militias throughout the Middle East. At the time of his killing, Soleimani had orchestrated a vast array of militias that stretched from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq.
This episode of Vox Atlas explains why Iran created the Quds Force, how they use proxy militias, and how Soleimani took the strategy to a new level.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. Subscribe for the latest.


vox--2020-01-28--The controversy over a Washington Post reporter’s Kobe Bryant tweets, explained

The Washington Post suspended and then reinstated a reporter who posted a series of tweets about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant after his death on Sunday .
The incident has stirred up controversy over how we remember complicated public figures , even as circumstances around the suspension remain unclear .
Bryant , 41 , and one of his daughters , 13-year-old Gianna Maria-Onore Bryant , were among nine people killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas , California , on Sunday morning .
News of the crash prompted an outpouring of emotion across the country and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ met with reminders of a darker part of Bryant ’ s past : namely , the rape case brought against him more than 15 years ago .
Felicia Sonmez , a reporter at the Washington Post , was one of many people to bring up the incident .
Initially , she tweeted out a link to a 2016 story from the Daily Beast about the case hours after Bryant ’ s death .
Later , she tweeted about the apparent backlash she had received over the tweet .
“ Well , THAT was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that 10,000 people had commented and emailed her with “ abuse and death threats.
” She noted that she did not write the story and that it ’ s more than three years old .
“ Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling , ” she continued .
Later , she went on to post a screenshot of her inbox , with one message to her reading : “ Piece of fucking shit .
Go fuck yourself .
Cunt.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but the controversy around them — and Sonmez ’ s employer ’ s handling of them — has continued to swirl .
The circumstances around Sonmez ’ s suspension are murky “ National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while the Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated the Post newsroom ’ s social media policy .
The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues , ” said Tracy Grant , the managing editor of the Washington Post , in an initial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of clarity on the matter .
The Daily Mail was first to report Sonmez ’ s suspension on Sunday evening and suggested the decision had been made because of her tweet linking to the Daily Beast story .
However , reporter Matthew Keys later reported that it was instead tied to Sonmez ’ s inbox screenshot tweet , because it contained the full names of the people who had emailed her and could create legal issues or violate Twitter ’ s terms of service .
A Post employee told Vox ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suspended because of one particular Bryant-related tweet but instead because of the totality of them .
Kafka asked the Post whether the outlet is reacting to the online mob angered by Sonmez ’ s treatment of a popular sports star .
Kris Coratti , head of communications at the Post , pushed back .
“ That ’ s not at all what Tracy said , and that ’ s not at all accurate , ” Coratti said .
Sonmez did not reply to a request for comment from Vox .
However , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s media critic , about the matter .
She said that on Sunday , she emailed Grant and her editor about the threats she had received after her tweets and that Grant instructed her to take the tweets down .
Sonmez told Wemple she was a “ little delayed ” in removing them because she was worried about the threats , noting that someone had posted her address online .
After a follow-up from Grant , Sonmez took the tweets down , and she said that on Sunday evening she stayed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety .
She was then told she was being placed on administrative leave .
Grant told her via email that the tweets didn ’ t “ pertain ” to her area of coverage , and that her social media behavior “ is making it harder for others to do their work ” at the Post .
As Wemple notes , a look at the outlet ’ s social media guidelines makes the reason Sonmez was suspended more confusing , not less : The Post encourages reporters to be informative , check facts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I would argue that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder .
We are more able to do our jobs because we ’ ve demonstrated to those survivors that we ’ re worthy of their trust , ” Sonmez told Wemple .
“ I ’ m a little confused .
If The Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues jobs harder , I ’ d appreciate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a union that represents about 1,000 of the publication ’ s employees , published an open letter to Post leadership supporting Sonmez and calling on their employer to take “ immediate steps ” to support her .
“ We have repeatedly seen colleagues — including members of management — share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction , ” the guild wrote .
“ But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact .
Felicia did nothing more than what the Post ’ s own news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article about the past allegation against Bryant.
” On Tuesday , the Post reversed course on its decision .
In a new statement , Grant said that while they considered Sonmez ’ s tweets “ ill-timed , ” they didn ’ t violate the publication ’ s social media policy .
She added that the Post consistently urges restraint , “ which is particularly important when there are tragic deaths , ” and regretted having spoken publicly about the matter .
There ’ s a broader discussion about how we remember complicated figures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did , indeed , spark an enormous backlash online .
Thousands of people responded to her Daily Beast tweet with outrage , while others came to her defense .
There is a bigger debate beyond the circumstances of Sonmez ’ s tweets : How do we talk about revered figures when they die , including the good and the bad ?
Sonmez is hardly the only person to mention the allegation against Bryant in the wake of his death .
Plenty of other people did the same and did not get the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posters were men , and men often don ’ t experience the same amount of vitriol online as their female counterparts .
Also , it ’ s a tough subject : The helicopter crash is a tragic incident , Bryant leaves behind his family and friends , and he is a beloved figure to many .
His family is grieving , and taking to Twitter to talk about a dark part of his past can appear insensitive .
At the same time , the rape allegation against him is part of his narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of good things and was great at basketball doesn ’ t mean we should never speak of other aspects of his life .
That ’ s perhaps especially true for reporters .
It ’ s a question we face after the death of many public figures .
Sen. John McCain was a war hero and a political powerhouse , but he also put Sarah Palin on the national stage , among other controversies .
Being a public figure is complicated , and those complications happen in our private lives , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate around the sensitivity of tweets like Sonmez ’ s , the Post ’ s decision to suspend her was perplexing , as was its murky reasoning and , finally , its reversal .
Journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the truth and shining light on things that are sometimes ugly and painful .
The Post should recognize that — or at the very least have an explanation beyond seemingly responding to a Twitter mob .

The Washington Post suspended and then reinstated a reporter who posted a series of tweets about the 2003 rape allegation against basketball star Kobe Bryant after his death on Sunday. The incident has stirred up controversy over how we remember complicated public figures, even as circumstances around the suspension remain unclear.
Bryant, 41, and one of his daughters, 13-year-old Gianna Maria-Onore Bryant, were among nine people killed in a helicopter crash in Calabasas, California, on Sunday morning. News of the crash prompted an outpouring of emotion across the country and the world, but it was also met with reminders of a darker part of Bryant’s past: namely, the rape case brought against him more than 15 years ago. Felicia Sonmez, a reporter at the Washington Post, was one of many people to bring up the incident.
Initially, she tweeted out a link to a 2016 story from the Daily Beast about the case hours after Bryant’s death. Later, she tweeted about the apparent backlash she had received over the tweet. “Well, THAT was eye-opening,” she wrote, saying that 10,000 people had commented and emailed her with “abuse and death threats.” She noted that she did not write the story and that it’s more than three years old. “Any public figure is worth remembering in their totality even if that public figure is beloved and that totality unsettling,” she continued.
Later, she went on to post a screenshot of her inbox, with one message to her reading: “Piece of fucking shit. Go fuck yourself. Cunt.”
Washington Post reporter @feliciasonmez deleted her crass tweets about Kobe Bryant. But screen grabs are forever – and I took some before she deleted the tweets.
Bye, Felicia. pic.twitter.com/IvNZHkiBam — Matthew Keys (@MatthewKeysLive) January 26, 2020
The tweets have since been deleted, but the controversy around them — and Sonmez’s employer’s handling of them — has continued to swirl.
The circumstances around Sonmez’s suspension are murky
“National political reporter Felicia Sonmez was placed on administrative leave while the Post reviews whether tweets about the death of Kobe Bryant violated the Post newsroom’s social media policy. The tweets displayed poor judgment that undermined the work of her colleagues,” said Tracy Grant, the managing editor of the Washington Post, in an initial statement, which did not provide a lot of clarity on the matter.
The Daily Mail was first to report Sonmez’s suspension on Sunday evening and suggested the decision had been made because of her tweet linking to the Daily Beast story. However, reporter Matthew Keys later reported that it was instead tied to Sonmez’s inbox screenshot tweet, because it contained the full names of the people who had emailed her and could create legal issues or violate Twitter’s terms of service.
A Post employee told Vox’s Peter Kafka that Sonmez wasn’t suspended because of one particular Bryant-related tweet but instead because of the totality of them.
Kafka asked the Post whether the outlet is reacting to the online mob angered by Sonmez’s treatment of a popular sports star. Kris Coratti, head of communications at the Post, pushed back. “That’s not at all what Tracy said, and that’s not at all accurate,” Coratti said.
Sonmez did not reply to a request for comment from Vox. However, she spoke with Erik Wemple, the Post’s media critic, about the matter. She said that on Sunday, she emailed Grant and her editor about the threats she had received after her tweets and that Grant instructed her to take the tweets down.
Sonmez told Wemple she was a “little delayed” in removing them because she was worried about the threats, noting that someone had posted her address online. After a follow-up from Grant, Sonmez took the tweets down, and she said that on Sunday evening she stayed in a hotel out of fear for her safety. She was then told she was being placed on administrative leave. Grant told her via email that the tweets didn’t “pertain” to her area of coverage, and that her social media behavior “is making it harder for others to do their work” at the Post.
As Wemple notes, a look at the outlet’s social media guidelines makes the reason Sonmez was suspended more confusing, not less: The Post encourages reporters to be informative, check facts, and take ownership of mistakes. “I would argue that not ignoring a matter of public record is the way to go and making survivors feel seen and heard helps Washington Post journalists rather than making our jobs harder. We are more able to do our jobs because we’ve demonstrated to those survivors that we’re worthy of their trust,” Sonmez told Wemple. “I’m a little confused. If The Post is arguing that letting those survivors feel seen makes other colleagues jobs harder, I’d appreciate an explanation.”
The Washington Post Guild, a union that represents about 1,000 of the publication’s employees, published an open letter to Post leadership supporting Sonmez and calling on their employer to take “immediate steps” to support her. “We have repeatedly seen colleagues — including members of management — share contentious opinions on social media platforms without sanction,” the guild wrote. “But here a valued colleague is being censured for making a statement of fact. Felicia did nothing more than what the Post’s own news stories have done when she shared an article about the past allegation against Bryant.”
Our statement in support of our colleague, Felicia Sonmez: https://t.co/2GDbANeybb — Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) January 27, 2020
On Tuesday, the Post reversed course on its decision. In a new statement, Grant said that while they considered Sonmez’s tweets “ill-timed,” they didn’t violate the publication’s social media policy. She added that the Post consistently urges restraint, “which is particularly important when there are tragic deaths,” and regretted having spoken publicly about the matter.
New statement regarding Post reporter Felicia Sonmez pic.twitter.com/HBt2s5VW68 — Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) January 28, 2020
But the matter, it appears, still hasn’t been put to bed entirely. After her reinstatement, Sonmez released a statement saying that the Post’s readers and employees, including her, “deserve to hear directly” from Post editor Marty Baron about what happened.
I believe that Washington Post readers and employees, including myself, deserve to hear directly from @PostBaron on the newspaper’s handling of this matter. My statement on The Post’s decision tonight: pic.twitter.com/t5ULzUQhYT — Felicia Sonmez (@feliciasonmez) January 29, 2020
There’s a broader discussion about how we remember complicated figures after they die
Sonmez’s tweets did, indeed, spark an enormous backlash online. Thousands of people responded to her Daily Beast tweet with outrage, while others came to her defense.
I’m sorry but I fail to see how placing @feliciasonmez on administrative leave for posting a reported news article about the 2003 accusations against Kobe is in any way fair — Hayes Brown (@HayesBrown) January 27, 2020
Such insensitivity. @feliciasonmez and the @washingtonpost are perfect examples of why Americans find the Mainstream Media so detestable. https://t.co/h1IWZzUBS0 — toddstarnes (@toddstarnes) January 26, 2020
There is a bigger debate beyond the circumstances of Sonmez’s tweets: How do we talk about revered figures when they die, including the good and the bad?
Sonmez is hardly the only person to mention the allegation against Bryant in the wake of his death. Plenty of other people did the same and did not get the same amount of backlash; many of the posters were men, and men often don’t experience the same amount of vitriol online as their female counterparts.
Also, it’s a tough subject: The helicopter crash is a tragic incident, Bryant leaves behind his family and friends, and he is a beloved figure to many. His family is grieving, and taking to Twitter to talk about a dark part of his past can appear insensitive. At the same time, the rape allegation against him is part of his narrative, and just because he did a lot of good things and was great at basketball doesn’t mean we should never speak of other aspects of his life. That’s perhaps especially true for reporters.
It’s a question we face after the death of many public figures. Sen. John McCain was a war hero and a political powerhouse, but he also put Sarah Palin on the national stage, among other controversies. Being a public figure is complicated, and those complications happen in our private lives, too.
Beyond the ins and outs of the debate around the sensitivity of tweets like Sonmez’s, the Post’s decision to suspend her was perplexing, as was its murky reasoning and, finally, its reversal. Journalists are supposed to be dedicated to the truth and shining light on things that are sometimes ugly and painful. The Post should recognize that — or at the very least have an explanation beyond seemingly responding to a Twitter mob.
Peter Kafka contributed reporting to this story.


vox--2020-01-28--Trump’s Israel-Palestine peace plan, explained

President Donald Trump claims his peace plan for Israel and Palestine will prove to be a triumph that will last for the next 80 years .
But it ’ s unclear whether it will be viable for even 80 minutes .
That ’ s because most analysts believe the deal — the political portion of which was finally released on Tuesday — is dead on arrival .
“ It ’ s a total shitshow , ” a former senior White House official familiar with the peace plan process told me the day before its release .
In roughly 50 pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — masterminded by Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner — aims to solve the intractable problems that have stymied both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades .
It defines the future of Israeli settlements , how Palestinians might conditionally form a state , and America ’ s view of Israel ’ s myriad security concerns .
What it doesn ’ t do is provide a “ right of return ” for displaced Palestinians to their ancestral homes in Israel , allow for a sovereign state of Palestine to form a military that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or to defend itself against Israel ) , or give Palestinians any meaningful part of Jerusalem as its capital .
In fact , it essentially ignores all of the Palestinians ’ key desires , as the plan was drafted with no input from Palestinian leaders .
The rollout ’ s optics , which featured Trump alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but with no Palestinian leadership present , won ’ t quell those concerns .
Some even argue the plan ’ s release is more meant to help Netanyahu win a tough election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal of the century ’ isn ’ t a peace plan at all .
It is a plan to reelect Benjamin Netanyahu , ” Guy Ziv , an Israel expert at American University , told me .
“ If this plan was truly aimed at breaking the diplomatic stalemate , the Palestinians would have been consulted in the plan ’ s formulation.
” He noted that their negotiators cut off ties when Trump ’ s team decided to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem .
“ It ’ s not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It satisfies neither the national aspirations of the Palestinian people nor Israel ’ s security needs.
” But to hear Trump tell it , he has brokered the most important diplomatic breakthroughs not just of his presidency but of modern history .
“ It ’ s been a long and very arduous process to arrive at this moment , ” Trump said in a speech at the White House Tuesday , standing next to a smiling Netanyahu .
“ All prior administrations from President Lyndon Johnson have tried and bitterly failed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ small things or shy away from big problems.
” Netanyahu , for his part , was thrilled with the outcome .
“ I believe that down the decades , and perhaps down the centuries , we will also remember January 28 , 2020 , because on this day , you became the first world leader to recognize Israel ’ s sovereignty over areas that are vital to our security and central to our heritage , ” the prime minister said to Trump .
What happens next is key .
It ’ s unclear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middle East and Europe will stand behind the strategy , and Palestinian leaders have already rejected it .
Netanyahu aims to push for a vote Sunday to annex 30 percent of the West Bank and parts of the Jordan Valley — clearly emboldened by the plan ’ s release .
Which means it already looks like the Trump administration has deepened the crisis it promised to solve .
“ The real threat to peace is if the plan succeeds , ” Khaled Elgindy , an adviser to Palestinian leadership from 2004 to 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peace plan actually says There ’ s a lot to this document , but there are four major elements of the new political proposal in particular you need to know about : 1 ) Israel keeps the vast majority of Jerusalem as its sovereign capital ; 2 ) Palestinians get no right of return ; 3 ) it redraws borders mainly between Israel and the West Bank ; and 4 ) doesn ’ t allow for Palestine to create a fighting force to defend itself .
First , Israel gets the entirety of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A future state of Palestine would get a few neighborhoods in far eastern Jerusalem .
That ’ s a major decision .
For the first 20 years of Israel ’ s existence , Jerusalem was divided .
Israel controlled the parts of Jerusalem and its suburbs inside the red dotted line on this map , while Jordan controlled everything outside of it ( blue dotted lines separate Jerusalem proper from suburbs ) : Jordan controlled the Temple Mount , a hill in the map ’ s brown splotch .
The hill hosts the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an ancient Jewish temple and one of Judaism ’ s holiest sites , and two of Islam ’ s most important landmarks , the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock .
Israeli Jews weren ’ t allowed to pray in the area while Jordan controlled it .
During the 1967 war , Israel took control of East Jerusalem .
Israel calls Jerusalem its undivided capital today , but few countries recognize it as such .
UN Security Council Resolution 478 condemns Israel ’ s decision to annex East Jerusalem as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a compromise solution .
So for the Trump administration to basically say , “ Sorry , all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel , ” is a gutsy move that will make Israel ’ s leaders happy but doom any chance of bringing the Palestinians on board .
No “ right of return ” for Palestinian refugees The plan explicitly states that there shall be no “ right to return ” for the millions of Palestinians forced out of their ancestral homes during the formation of the Israeli state .
The 1948 war uprooted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a refugee crisis that is still not resolved .
Palestinians call this mass eviction the Nakba — Arabic for “ catastrophe ” — and its legacy remains one of the most intractable issues in ongoing peace negotiations .
Today , there are more than 7 million Palestinian refugees , defined as people displaced in 1948 and their descendants .
A core Palestinian demand in peace negotiations is some kind of justice for these refugees , most commonly in the form of the “ right of return ” to the homes their families abandoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t accept the right of return without abandoning either its Jewish or democratic identity .
Adding 7 million Arabs to Israel ’ s population would make Jews a minority ; Israel ’ s total population is about 8 million , a number that includes the 1.5 million Arabs already there .
So Israelis refuse to even consider including the right to return in any final status deal — and now , it seems , the Americans agree with that view .
The plan lays out three options for these refugees : The proposal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank , in exchange for “ land swaps ” that include two areas in the Negev Desert .
Here ’ s the “ conceptual map ” included in the proposal : As you can see , the map gives Israel a large chunk of the West Bank where there are currently a number of Israeli settlements .
These settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory are currently illegal under international law and are not considered part of Israel proper .
This plan would change that by granting Israel the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ built on .
The map also shows that Israel would take control of the Jordan River Valley .
That ’ s a promise Netanyahu made to his people last September , and it ’ s highly controversial .
The Jordan Valley runs along the east edge of the West Bank , the heavily Palestinian-populated area taken by Israel in the 1967 war , marking its boundary with neighboring Jordan .
It contains both Palestinian population centers , like the city of Jericho , and a number of Israeli settlements .
The most credible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this land is essentially strategic .
Israel has faced invasions from Jordan before , and an IDF military presence in the Jordan Valley is arguably vital to protecting Israel from a hypothetical future invasion .
However , there is no imminent risk of such an invasion to justify an immediate land grab .
And there are lots of arrangements by which Israel could protect legitimate security interests in the Jordan Valley without outright seizing the land .
It could station some troops there with permission from a Palestinian state , for example .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a big land grab that would also ruin any hope of a future Palestinian state .
Finally , the plan calls for a future state of Palestine to basically never be able to secure itself .
“ The State of Palestine will not have the right to forge military , intelligence or security agreements with any state or organization that adversely affect the State of Israel ’ s security , as determined by the State of Israel , ” the document reads .
“ The State of Palestine will not be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside of the State of Palestine.
” In other words , a future Palestinian state would not be able to create armed forces to protect itself or fight others .
This might seem prudent for Israel ’ s security , but it would basically leave the state of Palestine at the mercy of Israel ’ s strong military , giving Israel a greater ability to bully its future neighbor .
There ’ s an economic component to the peace plan too This is all supposed to add to the economic portion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Dubbed “ Peace to Prosperity , ” the economic plan was billed as “ a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society.
” The administration claimed it had “ the potential to facilitate more than $ 50 billion in new investment over ten years.
” But critics slammed the proposal , likening it to a “ real estate brochure ” — complete with glossy promotional photos from Palestinian aid programs that the Trump administration has cut funding for .
Crucially , the plan lacked any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
That was by design : Kushner decided to put out the economic half before releasing the political half , saying that releasing the economic bit was “ less controversial.
” But without that second political half , the economic proposal was essentially meaningless .
It ’ s hard to imagine anyone investing billions of dollars in big infrastructure and transportation projects for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while the Israeli government continues to annex more and more territory in the former and regularly bombs the latter .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ satisfies any of those concerns , but experts almost unanimously say that it won ’ t .
No plan was ever going to be perfect .
Past administrations , Republican and Democrat , failed to realize a peace deal .
Trump ’ s plan was thus always likely to join theirs on the trash heap of diplomatic history .
But this administration ’ s attempt differed in the way it bluntly sidelined Palestinian interests and leaders while prioritizing Israeli interests .
It was less of a negotiation , then , and more of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s support for Israel ’ s right wing A hallmark of Trump ’ s approach to the Middle East is his close personal relationship with Netanyahu and his support for the right-wing government he leads .
Their friendship , and Trump ’ s extremely pro-Israel advisers — from Vice President Mike Pence to US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman to Kushner himself — have led his administration to back many of Netanyahu ’ s priorities in the region , in some cases overturning decades of US foreign policy and destroying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For example , Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018 , following through on his promise from months earlier .
In March 2019 , the US recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel , another massive change in US foreign policy .
The Golan Heights , as Neri Zilber wrote for Vox in 2018 , is a “ strategic area of elevated land situated along Israel ’ s northern border with Syria .
For decades it was part of Syria ... [ but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1967 war and later annexed it in a move not recognized by the international community.
” And last November , Pompeo announced he was reversing a longstanding State Department legal opinion labeling Israel ’ s settlements in the West Bank as illegal under international law .
The new position sharply contradicted mainstream interpretations of the law , the historical US approach to the conflict , and the broader international community ’ s view of the situation .
The announcement sent a clear message to Israeli settlers and its government : Go ahead and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want as a home for their future state .
All of that , mixed in with Trump ’ s order to close a Palestinian mission in Washington and stopping aid for Palestinian refugees , showed just how much Trump favored Netanyahu ’ s vision for Israel and why Palestinian leaders gave up on the process .
But Trump also had a domestic political reason to do all this : Republicans want the US president to show pro-Israel bona fides .
There ’ s been a remarkable surge in pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows that in 1988 , 47 percent of Republicans and 42 percent of Democrats took Israel ’ s side in the conflict with the Palestinians .
As of March 2019 , that figure is roughly similar for Democrats ( 43 percent ) but dramatically higher for Republicans ( 76 percent ) .
It is therefore in Trump ’ s political interest to keep siding with Netanyahu .
“ Rather than build on previous efforts , the Trump White House has taken measures , such as recognizing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serves the interests of Netanyahu , Israeli settlers , and the agenda of the conservative evangelical community in the US — the latter a key part of Trump ’ s base , ” American University ’ s Ziv said .
And that brings us to why Trump wanted to release the peace plan now .
The new plan is mainly about Netanyahu , not peace Netanyahu is battling corruption and bribery charges while simultaneously campaigning for reelection in March 2020 .
A November 2019 indictment against Netanyahu covers three different cases , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inappropriate gifts from a billionaire and corrupt arrangements with media magnates aimed at improving his press coverage .
The technical charges are bribery , fraud , and breach of public trust — bribery being the most serious under Israeli law .
Jail time is not out of the question : Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert got wrapped up in a bribery scandal during his time in office in the late 2000s and eventually served more than a year in prison .
The indictment came at a critical time in Israeli politics : the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Netanyahu ’ s right-wing Likud party nor its chief rival , the centrist Blue and White party led by Benny Gantz , has been able to form a governing coalition .
The parties had been in talks to ally and form a national unity coalition , but one of the key sticking points has been Netanyahu himself .
He wants to keep the top job in some capacity , while Blue and White leaders have adamantly refused to allow him to do so while an indictment is still on the table .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ third election in a year to form a government , with Netanyahu ’ s and Gantz ’ s parties still the leaders .
This political and legal crisis has left Netanyahu clawing for power .
Enter Trump , who with this right-wing-friendly strategy could give his Israeli friend a boost .
“ The timing of this plan ’ s release was clearly orchestrated by Netanyahu and his supporters in Washington .
It provides an embattled prime minister , who seems to be on his way out , with a major pre-election gift — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ziv .
“ It shifts the focus of the Israeli election campaign from an indicted prime minister who may face prison time to a plan that is portrayed as highly favorable to Israel.
” “ It ’ s therefore the most blatant interference in domestic Israeli affairs we ’ ve seen to date , ” he concluded .

President Donald Trump claims his peace plan for Israel and Palestine will prove to be a triumph that will last for the next 80 years. But it’s unclear whether it will be viable for even 80 minutes.
That’s because most analysts believe the deal — the political portion of which was finally released on Tuesday — is dead on arrival.
“It’s a total shitshow,” a former senior White House official familiar with the peace plan process told me the day before its release.
In roughly 50 pages, the administration’s political strategy — masterminded by Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner — aims to solve the intractable problems that have stymied both Democratic and Republican administrations for decades.
It defines the future of Israeli settlements, how Palestinians might conditionally form a state, and America’s view of Israel’s myriad security concerns.
What it doesn’t do is provide a “right of return” for displaced Palestinians to their ancestral homes in Israel, allow for a sovereign state of Palestine to form a military that it could use to threaten Israel (or to defend itself against Israel), or give Palestinians any meaningful part of Jerusalem as its capital.
In fact, it essentially ignores all of the Palestinians’ key desires, as the plan was drafted with no input from Palestinian leaders.
The rollout’s optics, which featured Trump alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu but with no Palestinian leadership present, won’t quell those concerns. Some even argue the plan’s release is more meant to help Netanyahu win a tough election in March.
“The so-called ‘deal of the century’ isn’t a peace plan at all. It is a plan to reelect Benjamin Netanyahu,” Guy Ziv, an Israel expert at American University, told me. “If this plan was truly aimed at breaking the diplomatic stalemate, the Palestinians would have been consulted in the plan’s formulation.” He noted that their negotiators cut off ties when Trump’s team decided to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
“It’s not a serious plan,” Ziv continued. “It satisfies neither the national aspirations of the Palestinian people nor Israel’s security needs.”
But to hear Trump tell it, he has brokered the most important diplomatic breakthroughs not just of his presidency but of modern history. “It’s been a long and very arduous process to arrive at this moment,” Trump said in a speech at the White House Tuesday, standing next to a smiling Netanyahu. “All prior administrations from President Lyndon Johnson have tried and bitterly failed, but I was not elected to do small things or shy away from big problems.”
Netanyahu, for his part, was thrilled with the outcome.
“I believe that down the decades, and perhaps down the centuries, we will also remember January 28, 2020, because on this day, you became the first world leader to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over areas that are vital to our security and central to our heritage,” the prime minister said to Trump.
What happens next is key. It’s unclear if America’s allies in the Middle East and Europe will stand behind the strategy, and Palestinian leaders have already rejected it. Netanyahu aims to push for a vote Sunday to annex 30 percent of the West Bank and parts of the Jordan Valley — clearly emboldened by the plan’s release.
Which means it already looks like the Trump administration has deepened the crisis it promised to solve. “The real threat to peace is if the plan succeeds,” Khaled Elgindy, an adviser to Palestinian leadership from 2004 to 2009 and now at the Middle East Institute in Washington, told me.
What the new peace plan actually says
There’s a lot to this document, but there are four major elements of the new political proposal in particular you need to know about: 1) Israel keeps the vast majority of Jerusalem as its sovereign capital; 2) Palestinians get no right of return; 3) it redraws borders mainly between Israel and the West Bank; and 4) doesn’t allow for Palestine to create a fighting force to defend itself.
Jerusalem
First, Israel gets the entirety of an undivided Jerusalem as its capital. A future state of Palestine would get a few neighborhoods in far eastern Jerusalem.
That’s a major decision. For the first 20 years of Israel’s existence, Jerusalem was divided. Israel controlled the parts of Jerusalem and its suburbs inside the red dotted line on this map, while Jordan controlled everything outside of it (blue dotted lines separate Jerusalem proper from suburbs):
Jordan controlled the Temple Mount, a hill in the map’s brown splotch. The hill hosts the Western Wall, a retaining wall of an ancient Jewish temple and one of Judaism’s holiest sites, and two of Islam’s most important landmarks, the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Israeli Jews weren’t allowed to pray in the area while Jordan controlled it. During the 1967 war, Israel took control of East Jerusalem.
Israel calls Jerusalem its undivided capital today, but few countries recognize it as such. UN Security Council Resolution 478 condemns Israel’s decision to annex East Jerusalem as a violation of international law and calls for a compromise solution.
So for the Trump administration to basically say, “Sorry, all of Jerusalem belongs to Israel,” is a gutsy move that will make Israel’s leaders happy but doom any chance of bringing the Palestinians on board.
No “right of return” for Palestinian refugees
The plan explicitly states that there shall be no “right to return” for the millions of Palestinians forced out of their ancestral homes during the formation of the Israeli state.
The 1948 war uprooted 700,000 Palestinians from their homes, creating a refugee crisis that is still not resolved. Palestinians call this mass eviction the Nakba — Arabic for “catastrophe” — and its legacy remains one of the most intractable issues in ongoing peace negotiations.
Today, there are more than 7 million Palestinian refugees, defined as people displaced in 1948 and their descendants. A core Palestinian demand in peace negotiations is some kind of justice for these refugees, most commonly in the form of the “right of return” to the homes their families abandoned at the time.
Israel can’t accept the right of return without abandoning either its Jewish or democratic identity. Adding 7 million Arabs to Israel’s population would make Jews a minority; Israel’s total population is about 8 million, a number that includes the 1.5 million Arabs already there. So Israelis refuse to even consider including the right to return in any final status deal — and now, it seems, the Americans agree with that view.
The plan lays out three options for these refugees:
1. Absorption into the State of Palestine (subject to the limitations provided below); 2. Local integration in current host countries (subject to those countries consent); or 3. The acceptance of 5,000 refugees each year, for up to ten years (50,000 total refugees), in individual Organization of Islamic Cooperation member countries who agree to participate in Palestinian refugee resettlement (subject to those individual countries’ agreement).
Redrawing of borders
The proposal redraws borders to effectively give Israel more land in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, in exchange for “land swaps” that include two areas in the Negev Desert.
Here’s the “conceptual map” included in the proposal:
As you can see, the map gives Israel a large chunk of the West Bank where there are currently a number of Israeli settlements. These settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territory are currently illegal under international law and are not considered part of Israel proper. This plan would change that by granting Israel the big section of land they’re built on.
The map also shows that Israel would take control of the Jordan River Valley. That’s a promise Netanyahu made to his people last September, and it’s highly controversial.
The Jordan Valley runs along the east edge of the West Bank, the heavily Palestinian-populated area taken by Israel in the 1967 war, marking its boundary with neighboring Jordan. It contains both Palestinian population centers, like the city of Jericho, and a number of Israeli settlements.
The most credible argument for Israel formally seizing control of this land is essentially strategic. Israel has faced invasions from Jordan before, and an IDF military presence in the Jordan Valley is arguably vital to protecting Israel from a hypothetical future invasion.
However, there is no imminent risk of such an invasion to justify an immediate land grab. And there are lots of arrangements by which Israel could protect legitimate security interests in the Jordan Valley without outright seizing the land. It could station some troops there with permission from a Palestinian state, for example.
Which means the plan looks simply like a big land grab that would also ruin any hope of a future Palestinian state.
A permanently demilitarized state of Palestine
Finally, the plan calls for a future state of Palestine to basically never be able to secure itself.
“The State of Palestine will not have the right to forge military, intelligence or security agreements with any state or organization that adversely affect the State of Israel’s security, as determined by the State of Israel,” the document reads. “The State of Palestine will not be able to develop military or paramilitary capabilities inside or outside of the State of Palestine.”
In other words, a future Palestinian state would not be able to create armed forces to protect itself or fight others. This might seem prudent for Israel’s security, but it would basically leave the state of Palestine at the mercy of Israel’s strong military, giving Israel a greater ability to bully its future neighbor.
There’s an economic component to the peace plan too
This is all supposed to add to the economic portion of the peace plan the administration released last June.
Dubbed “Peace to Prosperity,” the economic plan was billed as “a vision to empower the Palestinian people to build a prosperous and vibrant Palestinian society.” The administration claimed it had “the potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years.”
But critics slammed the proposal, likening it to a “real estate brochure” — complete with glossy promotional photos from Palestinian aid programs that the Trump administration has cut funding for.
“It’s a total shitshow”
Crucially, the plan lacked any details about a political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That was by design: Kushner decided to put out the economic half before releasing the political half, saying that releasing the economic bit was “less controversial.” But without that second political half, the economic proposal was essentially meaningless.
It’s hard to imagine anyone investing billions of dollars in big infrastructure and transportation projects for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza while the Israeli government continues to annex more and more territory in the former and regularly bombs the latter. The question now is if the political portion satisfies any of those concerns, but experts almost unanimously say that it won’t.
No plan was ever going to be perfect. Past administrations, Republican and Democrat, failed to realize a peace deal. Trump’s plan was thus always likely to join theirs on the trash heap of diplomatic history.
But this administration’s attempt differed in the way it bluntly sidelined Palestinian interests and leaders while prioritizing Israeli interests. It was less of a negotiation, then, and more of a strong-arming.
The peace plan continues Trump’s support for Israel’s right wing
A hallmark of Trump’s approach to the Middle East is his close personal relationship with Netanyahu and his support for the right-wing government he leads.
Their friendship, and Trump’s extremely pro-Israel advisers — from Vice President Mike Pence to US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman to Kushner himself — have led his administration to back many of Netanyahu’s priorities in the region, in some cases overturning decades of US foreign policy and destroying the chance of bringing Palestinians into the process.
For example, Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018, following through on his promise from months earlier.
In March 2019, the US recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel, another massive change in US foreign policy. The Golan Heights, as Neri Zilber wrote for Vox in 2018, is a “strategic area of elevated land situated along Israel’s northern border with Syria. For decades it was part of Syria ... [but] Israel conquered the region during the 1967 war and later annexed it in a move not recognized by the international community.”
And last November, Pompeo announced he was reversing a longstanding State Department legal opinion labeling Israel’s settlements in the West Bank as illegal under international law. The new position sharply contradicted mainstream interpretations of the law, the historical US approach to the conflict, and the broader international community’s view of the situation.
The announcement sent a clear message to Israeli settlers and its government: Go ahead and keep moving into land that the Palestinians want as a home for their future state.
All of that, mixed in with Trump’s order to close a Palestinian mission in Washington and stopping aid for Palestinian refugees, showed just how much Trump favored Netanyahu’s vision for Israel and why Palestinian leaders gave up on the process.
But Trump also had a domestic political reason to do all this: Republicans want the US president to show pro-Israel bona fides.
There’s been a remarkable surge in pro-Israel sentiment among Republicans over the past several decades. Gallup polling shows that in 1988, 47 percent of Republicans and 42 percent of Democrats took Israel’s side in the conflict with the Palestinians. As of March 2019, that figure is roughly similar for Democrats (43 percent) but dramatically higher for Republicans (76 percent).
It is therefore in Trump’s political interest to keep siding with Netanyahu.
“Rather than build on previous efforts, the Trump White House has taken measures, such as recognizing Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and created a plan that serves the interests of Netanyahu, Israeli settlers, and the agenda of the conservative evangelical community in the US — the latter a key part of Trump’s base,” American University’s Ziv said.
And that brings us to why Trump wanted to release the peace plan now.
The new plan is mainly about Netanyahu, not peace
Netanyahu is battling corruption and bribery charges while simultaneously campaigning for reelection in March 2020.
A November 2019 indictment against Netanyahu covers three different cases, with his alleged offenses including the receipt of inappropriate gifts from a billionaire and corrupt arrangements with media magnates aimed at improving his press coverage. The technical charges are bribery, fraud, and breach of public trust — bribery being the most serious under Israeli law.
Jail time is not out of the question: Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert got wrapped up in a bribery scandal during his time in office in the late 2000s and eventually served more than a year in prison.
The indictment came at a critical time in Israeli politics: the aftermath of an inconclusive election. Neither Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party nor its chief rival, the centrist Blue and White party led by Benny Gantz, has been able to form a governing coalition.
The parties had been in talks to ally and form a national unity coalition, but one of the key sticking points has been Netanyahu himself. He wants to keep the top job in some capacity, while Blue and White leaders have adamantly refused to allow him to do so while an indictment is still on the table.
That’s why Israel will have its third election in a year to form a government, with Netanyahu’s and Gantz’s parties still the leaders. This political and legal crisis has left Netanyahu clawing for power. Enter Trump, who with this right-wing-friendly strategy could give his Israeli friend a boost.
“The timing of this plan’s release was clearly orchestrated by Netanyahu and his supporters in Washington. It provides an embattled prime minister, who seems to be on his way out, with a major pre-election gift — possibly a life raft,” says Ziv. “It shifts the focus of the Israeli election campaign from an indicted prime minister who may face prison time to a plan that is portrayed as highly favorable to Israel.”
“It’s therefore the most blatant interference in domestic Israeli affairs we’ve seen to date,” he concluded.


vox--2020-01-28--Trump’s Israel-Palestine “peace plan” is a con

Donald Trump ’ s “ peace plan ” isn ’ t a plan for advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations .
It ’ s a plan for scuttling them .
The president released the long-awaited political framework of his “ Peace to Prosperity ” plan on Tuesday afternoon after a White House ceremony featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu .
The proposal is missing a signature feature of every prior peace plan : a path to a viable Palestinian state .
It divides up the Palestinian territories and surrounds them by Israel , and gives Israel total control over Palestinian security — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full control over its own land only when Israel deems it acceptable .
It ’ s a kind of state-minus : a Palestine without much of its land and subservient to Israel for basic functions .
“ Trump can try to make this a Palestinian state by calling it a state .
But it ain ’ t ever gon na whistle , ” writes Tamara Cofman Wittes , a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution ’ s Center for Middle East Policy .
Needless to say , the Palestinians can not and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already ruled it out .
“ No , no , and no , ” he has said .
“ Jerusalem is not for sale .
All of our rights are not for sale or bartering.
” In fact , the Trump administration didn ’ t even have a role in writing the plan : It was put together primarily by Trump ’ s son-in-law Jared Kushner , in consultation with the Israeli government .
The notion that this is a good-faith effort to make peace is laughable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t a peace plan , then what is it ?
First , it ’ s an effort to help Netanyahu , a staunch Trump ally , in advance of tightly contested March elections in Israel .
The release of a plan so tilted to Israeli priorities helps the right-wing prime minister sell himself as the man best positioned to handle the vital US-Israel relationship .
And it doesn ’ t seem like an accident that the plan was released on the same day that Israel ’ s attorney general formally indicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second , and more insidiously , it is a plan to legitimize Israel ’ s ongoing effort to seize additional Palestinian land .
The United States , as Israel ’ s most important ally and the historic mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process , helps define the parameters of what counts as an acceptable outcome .
As soon as the Palestinians have rejected the plan — and it took only minutes for them to do so — the Israelis can say , “ Well , we tried , but they wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ settlement expansion and land grabs , moving Israel toward “ not peace , but apartheid , ” as B ’ Tselem , a leading Israeli human rights group , put it in a press release on the proposal .
The Trump vision is , in short , a truly Orwellian creation : a “ peace plan ” that actually is a plan to destroy the prospects for peace .
Prior to the Trump plan , the basic framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations had been relatively fixed .
There would be two states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming bulk of the Palestinian-populated West Bank and Gaza Strip , and with Israel largely retreating to its current internationally recognized borders .
The two sides would come to agreement on thorny issues like which Israeli settlements in the West Bank could become part of Israel , and how exactly to share Jerusalem ( a holy city for Judaism and Islam that both sides claim as their capital ) .
The Trump plan pretty much throws out this framework entirely .
Instead of allowing the two sides to negotiate solutions to these core @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detailed vision for final terms before negotiations have even begun .
On each of the four main issues — West Bank borders/settlements , Jerusalem , justice for Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war , and balancing Israel ’ s security needs with Palestinian sovereignty — the plan is heavily tilted in Israel ’ s direction .
“ Palestinians are being offered no state at all , just the box a state came in , ” writes Hussein Ibish , the senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute .
“ Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the entire area from the river to the sea .
Pure apartheid.
” Perhaps the easiest way to see why is to look at the plan ’ s map for what final borders would look like .
The proposed Palestinian state is in green ; the little dots in the middle of the West Bank are Israeli “ enclaves ” that will remain part of Israel : What you see is a Palestinian “ state ” that covers Gaza and a fraction of the West Bank , is surrounded by Israel , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ land .
The plan seems to permit Israel beginning the process of annexing part of this land , starting with the Jordan Valley in the eastern part of the West Bank , an area that would cut off Palestinians from neighboring Jordan .
And the drawing actually understates how bad things will be , because it ’ s simply too zoomed out to illustrate how many different Israeli settlements there are and how much they ’ d screw up Palestinian development .
This map alone would render the entire plan unacceptable to Palestinians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the United States has unveiled a map with precise borders , and an Israeli leader has endorsed it .
That map is a maximal vision of Israeli territorial control in the West Bank and Jerusalem , ” Michael Koplow , the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum , writes in the Forward .
But it ’ s also terrible for Palestinians on the other three main contentious issues .
The plan states that “ Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel , and it should remain an undivided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a tiny fraction of the heavily Palestinian-populated part of the city known as East Jerusalem that excludes the religious holy sites ; “ all of Jerusalem ’ s holy sites should be subject to the same governance regimes that exist today , ” as the plan euphemistically puts it .
On refugees , the Palestinians literally get nothing — just a vague promise that some money might come up .
“ Proposals that demand that the State of Israel agree to take in Palestinian refugees , or that promise tens of billions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , have never been realistic and a credible funding source has never been identified , ” the plan explains .
“ Nevertheless , we will endeavor to raise a fund to provide some compensation to Palestinian refugees.
” Yet it is the security section that is perhaps most revealing .
Not only would the future state of Palestine not be permitted to develop its own “ military or paramilitary ” forces — ever — but Israel would also maintain full security control over Palestinian territory until it decides not to .
And if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is within its rights under the deal to retake military control .
“ Once the State of Israel determines that the State of Palestine has demonstrated both a clear intention and a sustained capacity to fight terrorism , a pilot program will be initiated in an area of the West Bank portion of the State of Palestine , designated by the State of Israel , to determine if the State of Palestine is able to meet the Security Criteria , ” the plan explains .
“ Should the State of Palestine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Security Criteria at any time , the State of Israel will have the right to reverse the process outlined above.
” A peace plan is supposed to end Israel ’ s military occupation of the West Bank .
By giving Israel full control , the Trump plan makes such a withdrawal nearly impossible to envision .
“ If you put it in Israel ’ s hands it will never happen , ” writes Ilan Goldenberg , the Middle East security director at the Center for a New American Security .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” The real purpose of the plan Given these harsh terms and the total lack of Palestinian buy-in , there is no plausible reason to believe this plan could ever serve as the basis of an actual peace agreement for the two sides .
So what ’ s the purpose of releasing it with all this fanfare ?
Part of the explanation is purely political : Trump wants to help his friend Netanyahu seem strong before Israel ’ s elections .
The timing of the plan ’ s release makes this relatively transparent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t go through all the trouble of drafting a plan just to interfere in a foreign election .
There ’ s a deeper , even likelier explanation : that the right-wingers who make up Trump ’ s Israel-Palestine team have worked with the Israeli right to figure out a way to undo the peace process itself .
Israeli politics has tilted heavily against peace negotiations in the past two decades , largely as a result of the collapse of the 1990s-era peace process into the violence of the second intifada .
The March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the center-right Blue and White party , which itself has endorsed the idea of annexing part of the West Bank — and celebrated the release of Trump ’ s plan as providing “ a strong , viable basis for advancing a peace accord with the Palestinian.
” Consider the likely effect of this plan ’ s release on Israeli politics in this context .
The Israel Policy Forum ’ s Koplow does a good job outlining it : Not only will Israeli leaders be hard-pressed to accept less than what Trump offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s plan will give them the opportunity to start taking land on their own .
The Israeli argument since Oslo has always been : “ We tried to negotiate , but the Palestinians wouldn ’ t listen.
” They ’ ll be able to say that this time around too , even though the negotiations were never offered in good faith .
What ’ s more , they can use the plan ’ s huge territorial concession — that Israel will get to keep its West Bank settlements permanently — as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it unilaterally .
Netanyahu had vowed to annex the Jordan Valley prior to the plan ’ s release ; Israel ’ s cabinet appears set to start the annexation effort as early as Sunday .
Such a land grab would force Israel down one of two dangerous one-state paths .
Option one would be to give the vote to Palestinians and make them full citizens of Israel , leading to an Arab demographic majority and thus ending Israel ’ s status as a Jewish state .
This is not only a recipe for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unacceptable to Israel ’ s current leadership , who care much more about the state ’ s Jewish character than its democratic one .
The other option is indefinite Israeli rule over Palestinians without granting them citizenship .
There ’ s a word for keeping an ethnically defined part of your population in permanent second-class citizenship : apartheid .
And that is the most fundamental effect of the Trump plan : to grant legitimacy to the move toward apartheid , to give America ’ s imprimatur to something its government once saw as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a just peace plan in the name of saving it .

Donald Trump’s “peace plan” isn’t a plan for advancing Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. It’s a plan for scuttling them.
The president released the long-awaited political framework of his “Peace to Prosperity” plan on Tuesday afternoon after a White House ceremony featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The proposal is missing a signature feature of every prior peace plan: a path to a viable Palestinian state. It divides up the Palestinian territories and surrounds them by Israel, and gives Israel total control over Palestinian security — allowing a future Palestinian government to exercise full control over its own land only when Israel deems it acceptable. It’s a kind of state-minus: a Palestine without much of its land and subservient to Israel for basic functions.
“Trump can try to make this a Palestinian state by calling it a state. But it ain’t ever gonna whistle,” writes Tamara Cofman Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy.
Needless to say, the Palestinians cannot and will not agree to such humiliation, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already ruled it out.
“No, no, and no,” he has said. “Jerusalem is not for sale. All of our rights are not for sale or bartering.”
In fact, the Palestinians didn’t even have a role in writing the plan: It was put together primarily by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, in consultation with the Israeli government. The notion that this is a good-faith effort to make peace is laughable.
So if the “peace plan” isn’t a peace plan, then what is it?
First, it’s an effort to help Netanyahu, a staunch Trump ally, in advance of tightly contested March elections in Israel. The release of a plan so tilted to Israeli priorities helps the right-wing prime minister sell himself as the man best positioned to handle the vital US-Israel relationship. And it doesn’t seem like an accident that the plan was released on the same day that Israel’s attorney general formally indicted Netanyahu on bribery and corruption charges.
Second, and more insidiously, it is a plan to legitimize Israel’s ongoing effort to seize additional Palestinian land.
The United States, as Israel’s most important ally and the historic mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, helps define the parameters of what counts as an acceptable outcome.
As soon as the Palestinians have rejected the plan — and it took only minutes for them to do so — the Israelis can say, “Well, we tried, but they wouldn’t deal.” And they can proceed with settlement expansion and land grabs, moving Israel toward “not peace, but apartheid,” as B’Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights group, put it in a press release on the proposal.
The Trump vision is, in short, a truly Orwellian creation: a “peace plan” that actually is a plan to destroy the prospects for peace.
Trump’s peace plan is a nonstarter
Prior to the Trump plan, the basic framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations had been relatively fixed. There would be two states, with the Palestinians taking control of the overwhelming bulk of the Palestinian-populated West Bank and Gaza Strip, and with Israel largely retreating to its current internationally recognized borders.
The two sides would come to agreement on thorny issues like which Israeli settlements in the West Bank could become part of Israel, and how exactly to share Jerusalem (a holy city for Judaism and Islam that both sides claim as their capital).
The Trump plan pretty much throws out this framework entirely.
Instead of allowing the two sides to negotiate solutions to these core disagreements, the plan lays out a detailed vision for final terms before negotiations have even begun.
On each of the four main issues — West Bank borders/settlements, Jerusalem, justice for Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war, and balancing Israel’s security needs with Palestinian sovereignty — the plan is heavily tilted in Israel’s direction.
“Palestinians are being offered no state at all, just the box a state came in,” writes Hussein Ibish, the senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute. “Israel will be left in complete control of the entire area from the river to the sea. Pure apartheid.”
Perhaps the easiest way to see why is to look at the plan’s map for what final borders would look like. The proposed Palestinian state is in green; the little dots in the middle of the West Bank are Israeli “enclaves” that will remain part of Israel:
What you see is a Palestinian “state” that covers Gaza and a fraction of the West Bank, is surrounded by Israel, and is cut up even further by Israeli land. The plan seems to permit Israel beginning the process of annexing part of this land, starting with the Jordan Valley in the eastern part of the West Bank, an area that would cut off Palestinians from neighboring Jordan.
And the drawing actually understates how bad things will be, because it’s simply too zoomed out to illustrate how many different Israeli settlements there are and how much they’d screw up Palestinian development. This map alone would render the entire plan unacceptable to Palestinians.
“For the first time, the United States has unveiled a map with precise borders, and an Israeli leader has endorsed it. That map is a maximal vision of Israeli territorial control in the West Bank and Jerusalem,” Michael Koplow, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, writes in the Forward.
But it’s also terrible for Palestinians on the other three main contentious issues.
The plan states that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city.” The Palestinians will be granted only a tiny fraction of the heavily Palestinian-populated part of the city known as East Jerusalem that excludes the religious holy sites; “all of Jerusalem’s holy sites should be subject to the same governance regimes that exist today,” as the plan euphemistically puts it.
On refugees, the Palestinians literally get nothing — just a vague promise that some money might come up.
“Proposals that demand that the State of Israel agree to take in Palestinian refugees, or that promise tens of billions of dollars in compensation for the refugees, have never been realistic and a credible funding source has never been identified,” the plan explains. “Nevertheless, we will endeavor to raise a fund to provide some compensation to Palestinian refugees.”
Yet it is the security section that is perhaps most revealing. Not only would the future state of Palestine not be permitted to develop its own “military or paramilitary” forces — ever — but Israel would also maintain full security control over Palestinian territory until it decides not to. And if at any time Israel changes its mind, it is within its rights under the deal to retake military control.
“Once the State of Israel determines that the State of Palestine has demonstrated both a clear intention and a sustained capacity to fight terrorism, a pilot program will be initiated in an area of the West Bank portion of the State of Palestine, designated by the State of Israel, to determine if the State of Palestine is able to meet the Security Criteria,” the plan explains. “Should the State of Palestine fail to meet all or any of the Security Criteria at any time, the State of Israel will have the right to reverse the process outlined above.”
A peace plan is supposed to end Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank. By giving Israel full control, the Trump plan makes such a withdrawal nearly impossible to envision.
“If you put it in Israel’s hands it will never happen,” writes Ilan Goldenberg, the Middle East security director at the Center for a New American Security. “It’s a recipe for permanent occupation.”
The real purpose of the plan
Given these harsh terms and the total lack of Palestinian buy-in, there is no plausible reason to believe this plan could ever serve as the basis of an actual peace agreement for the two sides.
So what’s the purpose of releasing it with all this fanfare?
Part of the explanation is purely political: Trump wants to help his friend Netanyahu seem strong before Israel’s elections. The timing of the plan’s release makes this relatively transparent.
But the Trump administration wouldn’t go through all the trouble of drafting a plan just to interfere in a foreign election. There’s a deeper, even likelier explanation: that the right-wingers who make up Trump’s Israel-Palestine team have worked with the Israeli right to figure out a way to undo the peace process itself.
Israeli politics has tilted heavily against peace negotiations in the past two decades, largely as a result of the collapse of the 1990s-era peace process into the violence of the second intifada.
The March elections are primarily a contest between Netanyahu and the center-right Blue and White party, which itself has endorsed the idea of annexing part of the West Bank — and celebrated the release of Trump’s plan as providing “a strong, viable basis for advancing a peace accord with the Palestinian.”
Consider the likely effect of this plan’s release on Israeli politics in this context. The Israel Policy Forum’s Koplow does a good job outlining it:
Israeli expectations have been permanently reset, and the trajectory of the Israeli position moving closer to the Palestinian one with each successive round of talks is over. Trump has destroyed any remaining hope that Israel will settle for the deal that peace processers have envisioned for a quarter century. In fact, Trump’s vision is weighted so far in one direction that it makes any deal at all hard to envision, particularly if Israel actually goes through with the annexation scenario that Trump has now greenlit.
Not only will Israeli leaders be hard-pressed to accept less than what Trump offered, the inevitable Palestinian rejection of Trump’s plan will give them the opportunity to start taking land on their own.
The Israeli argument since Oslo has always been: “We tried to negotiate, but the Palestinians wouldn’t listen.” They’ll be able to say that this time around too, even though the negotiations were never offered in good faith.
What’s more, they can use the plan’s huge territorial concession — that Israel will get to keep its West Bank settlements permanently — as a justification for annexing at least part of it unilaterally. Netanyahu had vowed to annex the Jordan Valley prior to the plan’s release; Israel’s cabinet appears set to start the annexation effort as early as Sunday.
Such a land grab would force Israel down one of two dangerous one-state paths.
Option one would be to give the vote to Palestinians and make them full citizens of Israel, leading to an Arab demographic majority and thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. This is not only a recipe for violence between Muslims and Jews but also unacceptable to Israel’s current leadership, who care much more about the state’s Jewish character than its democratic one.
The other option is indefinite Israeli rule over Palestinians without granting them citizenship. There’s a word for keeping an ethnically defined part of your population in permanent second-class citizenship: apartheid.
And that is the most fundamental effect of the Trump plan: to grant legitimacy to the move toward apartheid, to give America’s imprimatur to something its government once saw as impermissible.
They are destroying any prospect for a just peace plan in the name of saving it.