Democratic Presidential Candidates Dismiss Release of Mideast Peace Initiative
Error: Contact form not found.
by JNS.org
US Democratic presidential candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg delivers remarks on foreign policy and national security, in Bloomington, Indiana, US, June 11, 2019. Photo: REUTERS/John Sommers II.
JNS.org – As if on cue, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates dismissed details of the peace plan announced on Tuesday by US President Donald Trump. Right away, they jumped on positions set forth in the 180-page document aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—or at least, to jump-start the process into action.
“The United States can bring unequaled leadership to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we must use that leadership to promote a just and durable agreement. Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple UN resolutions,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump’s so-called ‘peace deal’ doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.”
It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump’s so-called ‘peace deal’ doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 28, 2020
“Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it,” tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
Trump’s “peace plan” is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) January 28, 2020
“This president’s Mideast ‘Deal of the Century,’ like so much else he’s done in foreign policy, makes complex situations worse. Peace requires both parties at the table. Not a political green light to the leader of one for unilateral annexation,” tweeted former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
This president’s Mideast “Deal of the Century,” like so much else he’s done in foreign policy, makes complex situations worse.
Peace requires both parties at the table. Not a political green light to the leader of one for unilateral annexation.
— Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) January 28, 2020
“A peace plan requires two sides to come together. This is a political stunt that could spark unilateral moves to annex territory and set back peace even more. I’ve spent a lifetime working to advance the security & survival of a Jewish and democratic Israel. This is not the way,” tweeted former US Vice President Joe Biden.
A peace plan requires two sides to come together. This is a political stunt that could spark unilateral moves to annex territory and set back peace even more. I’ve spent a lifetime working to advance the security & survival of a Jewish and democratic Israel. This is not the way. https://t.co/H6IhtP1YJd
— Joe Biden (Text Join to 30330) (@JoeBiden) January 29, 2020
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg offered a more measured, though critical, reaction.
“A negotiated two-state solution is critical to Israel’s and the Palestinians’ long-term security and well-being, and it is good that President Trump’s plan affirms that,” he said in a statement posted on his Twitter page. “Every peace plan deserves a chance, but any viable plan requires buy-in from both sides, and over the past three years, the President has done nothing but hurt the US’s position as an effective broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As this process unfolds, it is critical that neither party take unilateral steps that could trigger instability and violence.”
