Compromise of Sovereignty - Another Questionable Land Exchange

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Sep 8, 2020 at 17:16

This is now looking like another land exchange; that if Israel is blocked from absorbing its land of promise for a different promise of peace, then this observer would recommend the United States refrain from being identified as the sponsor, no matter the potential loss of good will. There are intrinsic reasons why the UAE arrangement appears to be a 'peace deal,' but ultimately Israel would be locked up in dealing with the alter ego hidden behind the faces that still seek to limit the Jewish State from achieving full sovereignty on historical Samaria/Judea- circumstances what will quickly and severely descend into exacerbating the clashes already in progress.
The proof is that if not all Islam is willing to concede any quarter to the Jewish State, then the agreement does not serve its full potential. The agreement then becomes the foil of Shiite Islam to hide its coming intentions that they can blame on the misguided Sunni Islamic 'peace partners;' that when they come blowing across the heights during the feint from Gaza in the misguided attempt to rout Israel, this coming after the European Union tells Israel they are again in violation of the international agreements the EU already reneged on. And Turkey and its alliances will be in the background in egregious desires of expansion of their own. Turkey's actions in the Med are an indicator they are more than willing to pull that trigger, following right after the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria. Notice that it is already in motion, UAE peace issues notwithstanding.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".