It took Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu twelve hours before congratulating President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. Even though the writing of President Donald Trump’s defeat had been on the wall, Netanyahu needed a moment to accept that the time of generous gifts and the president’s almost undivided attention has come to an end.

Certain policies affecting Israel are about to change, however, under Joe Biden, the Jewish state will not become irrelevant.

Netanyahu on Trump: ‘Israel’s Best Friend Ever in the White House’

Netanyahu, who did not get along well with President Obama, chose his words deliberately when he assessed what the Trump presidency meant to his country: “Israel’s best friend ever in the White House.”

And understandably so. For in the past four years, the Trump administration has strengthened the Jewish state’s position in the Middle East to an arguably unprecedented extent.

Trump advocated Israel’s sovereignty over the controversial Golan Heights, which the country captured from Syria in the 1967 Six-Day War. Also, in contrast to Obama and Biden, Trump approved the building and expansion of Jewish communities in the West Bank. Trump also kept his campaign promise and moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Meanwhile, his Middle East plan, the “deal of the century,” was also widely seen as beneficial to Israel.

Trump’s Crackdown on the Palestinian Authority and Brokering of Arab-Israeli Peace Deals

The White House also demonstratively suspended its financial contributions to the Palestinian Authority and its share of United Nations aid to Palestine. Most recently, Trump brokered “normalization agreements” with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Bahrain, strengthening Israel’s position and further isolated the Palestinians.

Hence it does not come as a surprise that Israel is mainly pro-Trump. Indeed, according to a National Democracy Institute survey, 70 percent of Jewish Israelis had wanted another term for him.

Biden is a Dedicated Supporter of Israel

However, not all is lost for the Jewish state. Those who feel Biden could engage in a spree of revocation, reversing all of Trump’s policies, or even question America’s unconditional support for Israel do not seem to know the President-elect and his devotion to Israel.

Biden has already made it clear that he will not reverse the decision on America’s embassy in Jerusalem. Nor will the Golan Heights be up for discussion.

Biden’s commitment to Israel goes so far that he applauded the agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. He called the deal a “historic breakthrough” and pledged to convince more countries in the region to sign similar agreements.

What About the Two-State Solution?

However, Biden and Harris do support the two-state solution. The annexation plans of parts of the West Bank, which Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had, should thus be off the table under his administration.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu does not need to fear any demands of significant concessions to the Palestinians from Biden, as Obama attempted.

Biden made this clear during the Democratic primaries when Senator Bernie Sanders – a notorious critic of Israel – suggested that the US use its Israeli support as leverage and seek concessions in favor of the Palestinians.

Biden’s answer was concise and unmistakable, calling Sanders’ idea “bizarre.”

How Will Biden’s Policies Toward Israel Differ from Trump’s?

However, Biden’s policies will differ regarding a reversal of the Trump-instigated withdrawal of economic and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. Moreover, Biden has also pledged to reopen the US Consulate in East Jerusalem and permit representation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington.

Accordingly, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas quickly announced that he could hardly wait to work with Joe Biden.

Assessing the Biden-Netanyahu Relationship

What will also likely change is the relationship between Netanyahu and the White House. While Biden and Netanyahu have known each other for over 40 years, both Biden and the Democratic Party have not forgotten how Netanyahu fully sided with the Republican party in recent years. Netanyahu also openly supported Mitt Romney in 2012 and railed alongside Republicans against the Iran nuclear deal during his speech in Congress in 2015.

Netanyahu’s open dislike of Obama broke one basic rule of Israeli and American politics: fostering consistently good relations with Republicans and Democrats, like all Israeli prime ministers before him.

However, a US paradigm shift away from unconditional support for Israel towards prioritizing the Palestinians is as inconceivable under Biden as it would have been under Trump, even though the tone and diplomatic approach are about to change.

Moreover, with Biden’s pledge to tackle the coronavirus and help the economy regain traction, the new administration’s focus will undoubtedly shift towards the domestic side for the foreseeable future.

L'articolo What Does the Biden Presidency Mean for Israel? proviene da InsideOver.

The two Palestinian organizations Hamas and Fatah have been enemies for nearly two decades. However, the current geopolitical situation which is increasingly isolating Palestinians and their cause is now forcing them to overcome their differences.

Hamas-Fatah Meet to Unify Against Israel

Representatives of both groups met on Tuesday in the Turkish capital Ankara. The talks aim to end more than 13 years of division, said Khalil al-Hajja, a high-ranking Hamas representative. The meeting also served to implement the results of an earlier meeting between the General Secretaries of the two rival factions, which took place in Ramallah and Beirut in early September.

Here, Palestinian factions tried to re-establish unity against Israel and to eliminate political divisions. The Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas agreed to form a joint leadership group called the Unified National Leadership for Popular Resistance made up of all factions in order to ensure “comprehensive popular resistance” against the Israeli occupation. As a result, the Palestinian state will push back against the validity of the so-called “Arab Consensus” and reject the idea that it has been isolated due to recent developments.

What is the ‘Arab Consensus’?

The consensus has always been that Arab states will only normalize relations with Israel if Israel satisfies a number of conditions to guarantee Palestinian rights. One of them is that Israel will pull out of all areas that it has been involved in since the 1967 Six-Day War in which the Arab states attacked Israel and lost significant amounts of territory. Another is to agree to a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, while the third is to find a just solution for the millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.

Previously, representatives of both organizations had called for a joint fight against Israel’s possible annexations in the West Bank at the beginning of July.

Assessing Fatah and Hamas

The more moderate Fatah of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is the largest Palestinian organization, while the Islamist Hamas is the second largest. Since 2007, Fatah has only ruled in the parts of the West Bank that are not administered by Israel. It was driven from the Gaza Strip by Hamas.

All attempts at reconciliation have so far failed. The last talks were held in 2017. Since then, leading representatives of both organizations have not sat down at the negotiating table.

Israel, the US, and the EU classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. The group, founded in 1987 and supported by Iran, denies Israel’s right to exist and calls for the forcible establishment of an Islamic Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan. Their military arm has repeatedly carried out terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.

Putting the Hamas-Fatah Talks in Context

Tuesday’s talks come days after the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain signed US-brokered agreements to establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The so-called Abraham Accord has emphasized how isolated Palestinians have become in the Arab world.

Saudi-Arabia could soon join the UAE and Bahrain in agreeing to official diplomatic ties with Israel. The Gulf states are increasingly interested in good relations with Israel for economic and geopolitical reasons. Furthermore, all share the same enemy in Iran, which remains determined to destabilize the region for its regional hegemonic aspirations.

The Palestinian Cause Has Been Severely Weakened

Hamas’ and Fatah’s meeting is a testimony of how detrimental the situation has become for the Palestinians. The militants’ extremism approach, violence, and antisemitism will not only continue to exacerbate the conflict but also further alienate Arab nations and thus strengthen Israel’s position in the conflict.

The change within the Arab world could have been an opportunity for the Palestinians to seek lasting peace. However, as the Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once famously stated, “the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

The forced rapprochement of Hamas and Fatah because of how isolated Palestine has become on the world stage is the latest example proving Eban’s words.

L'articolo Hamas and Fatah Meet in Ankara for Reconciliation Talks proviene da InsideOver.

The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas has threatened that Palestine will no longer be committed to all security agreements it has signed with Israel and America. The shocking announcement came just two days after the unveiling of Israel’s new government following a deal between Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz.

Abbas: Agreements With Israel and USA ‘Are Absolved as of Today’

“The Palestine Liberation Organisation and the State of Palestine are absolved as of today, of all the agreements and understandings with the American and Israeli governments and of all the obligations based on these understandings and agreements, including the security one,” Abbas said.

Abbas’s was protesting against the impending annexation of the West Bank under a plan drafted by US President Donald Trump’s administration. Just before his swearing in, Netanyahu had announced his intention of extending Israel sovereignty over settlements on the West Bank terming it a “glorious chapter in the history of Zionism.”

What Agreements Does Palestine Have With Israel?

Palestine has signed several agreements with Israel. These include the Oslo Accords, Hebron Agreement and Wye River Memorandum. These agreements have established the security parameters, cooperation frameworks and the civilian and security administrative divisions between Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The Oslo Accords were a set of two agreements signed by the late Yasser Arafat, former leader of Palestine Liberation Organisation and late Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin. They were signed in Washington, DC in 1993 and in Egypt in 1995. The accords led to the PLO recognizing the State of Israel in return of Palestinians having some increased control over the occupied territories.

While the Oslo Accords have largely been credited with quelling extreme hostilities that had earlier existed between the Palestinians and the Israelis, long lasting peace is yet to be achieved.

The Key Importance of the Hebron Agreement

The Hebron Agreement was signed on January 17, 1997. The signatories were General Dan Shamron representing Prime Minister Netanyahu and Saeb Erekat representing Yasser Arafat. The protocol provided for the deployment of IDF troops in Hebron, the only major West Bank city not fully transferred to the Palestinians.

Under the protocol, Hebron was divided into Area H-1 and Area-H-2. The Palestine Police assumed responsibilities in Area H-1 while Israel retained powers and responsibilities for internal security and public order in Area H-2.

In summary, the Hebron Agreement provided the security, coordination, measures and arrangements to implement the Oslo II Accord of 1995 that sought to reduce points of friction between Israel and Palestine by giving broadening Palestinian self-government in the West Bank, while at the same time protecting Israel’s vital interests, particularly security interests.

The Wye River Memorandum

The Wye River Memorandum was signed in October of 1998 by Netanyahu representing Israel and Arafat representing the Palestinian Authority. Its aim was to facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli forces from parts of West Bank and the resumption of the implementation of the Oslo II Accord.

Although in the past Abbas had made several statements threatening to pull out of the agreements, he never made good his threats. However, there is a strong likelihood that this time he might take some steps to undermine the agreements.

‘Security Coordination With Israel is No More’

To prove this, the Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shttayyeh early this week directed the cabinet to start implementing Abbas’s announcement.

“Security cooperation with the United States is no more. Security coordination with Israel is no more. We are going to maintain public order and the rule of law alone,” Shttayyeh said

The Israelis, Palestinian Authority and America have always shared intelligence information to counter terrorist activities by radical Palestinian groups. Without such cooperation, Israel will be vulnerable to groups such as the Hamas who have constantly fired rockets into its territory.

The friction between Palestinian and Israeli forces is also bound to increase as both sides stop to cooperate in providing security in the disputed areas.

Fear of Increased Violence and Clashes

Citing Israel military sources, this week one Israel media company confirmed that the cooperation has indeed stopped. Israeli officials speaking to the UK Independent confirmed this saying they feared the halting of cooperation could lead to increased violence and clashes between soldiers from both sides.

But there are also others who feel that Abbas is only issuing threats to put pressure on Israel and won’t take any extreme step that could jeopardize his image and also negatively impact Palestine.

“Political statements of this magnitude could be very useful if they fulfil a domestic or international function deemed in the national interest of the issuing party,” said Khalil Jahsan Executive Director Arab Center Washington.
According to him anything short of that could be quite damaging and self defeating to the Palestinian Authority. “Issuing tough statements is vastly easier than implementing the plans outlined in them,” Jahsan said.

The main question is whether Palestinian Authority would be prepared to deal with Israeli retaliation such as refusal to recognize the Palestinian Authority Government which came into existence following the signing of Oslo Accords.

In the opinion of Jonathan Kuttab, a non-resident Fellow at the Arab Center Washington, “The Palestinian Authority is intricately tied to Israel in numerous ways.” Therefore dissolving the agreements is in effect dissolving itself since its very existence is based on those agreements, according to Kuttab’s analysis.

Another impediment to Palestinian Authority disengaging itself from the agreements is its dependence on Israel to meet some of its obligations . As stipulated in the Paris Protocol of 1994, Israel collects taxes on its behalf of Palestine in West Bank and Gaza.

According to Reuters the tax transfers makes up about 50% of the Palestinian Authority’s budget. Last year alone Israel handed around $430 million to the Authority. This money is needed to pay wages and to provide basic services, raising major questions about what happens if there is an interruption to the flow of these funds.

L'articolo Implication of Palestine’s Threat to Cancel its Agreements With Israel proviene da InsideOver.

After more than twelve months, Israel’s Knesset has sworn in its new government with 73 of 120 votes in favor. It will first be led by Benjamin Netanyahu for 18 months before Benny Gantz will replace him.

Introducing the Massive New Cabinet

Before the vote, Netanyahu presented his new cabinet, which, with 36 ministers, constitutes the largest in the country’s history. The reason for the bloated government is the problematic government negotiations between Netanyahu’s Likud and Gantz’ Blue and White, during which all sides sought to secure as many offices as possible. So much so that the personal details for the cabinet had recently delayed the government’s inauguration.

“The people seek a unified government, and that’s what the people get today,” Netanyahu said at the beginning of the parliamentary session. In addition to Likud, Blue and White, and partners from the religious and fundamentalist camp, the HaAvoda Labor Party will also be part of the new government. These compromises, Netanyahu continued, were inevitable since another election would have been devastating for the country. Gantz, meanwhile, stated during his speech in the Knesset that the days when governments represented only half of the population were over and that the country had opted for unity, which was precisely the new path that was now being taken.

The New Government’s Top Priorities

One of the main priorities of the new government will be the implementation of President Trump’s proposed Middle East peace plan – which provides for an independent Palestinian state – but also for Israel to annex Jewish settlements in the West Bank.  It was time to apply Israeli law and open another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism, Netanyahu said regarding the government’s vision. However, how the peace process will proceed is more open than ever after Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas ceased all relations with Israel and the United States on Wednesday.

In three parliamentary elections since April, 2019, there had been no clear result for a political camp, also because Gantz previously rejected a coalition with Netanyahu unequivocally. Two weeks ago, however, against the background of the COVID-19 crisis and the effects on Israel, Netanyahu and Gantz finally agreed on a unity government.

The Schedule of Leadership

Netanyahu will initially remain prime minister, while Gantz will initially become minister of defence. Gabi Ashkenazi (Blue and White) becomes foreign minister, and the previous foreign minister Israel Katz (Likud) becomes finance minister in the new cabinet. Gantz’s previous office, President of the Knesset, will be conducted out by Yariv Levin (Likud).

Since Netanyahu’s power bloc consists of several smaller parties, he was only able to award a limited number of cabinet ministries to senior Likud representatives. To work around this problem and to reassure angry party members, Netanyahu introduced several new ministries. Including one for community development, one for settlement matters and one for higher education and water resources.

Naturally, these new ministries sparked criticism from the opposition. The prospective opposition leader Yair Lapid said that the artificial creation of offices had caused a loss of “trust in the Israeli public”. Besides, COVID-19 was an excuse for Netanyahu and his “corrupt party.” Israel’s emergency government was nothing more than “the largest and most wasteful in the country’s history,” Lapid concluded. Jesch has reason to be frustrated. His party was Yesh Atid had been an ally of Blue and White until Gantz recanted his promise and agreed with Netanyahu.

Netanyahu himself has been at the head of the government of Israel for longer than any other politician. He was head of government for the first time in 1996 and has been in office for three consecutive terms since 2009. However, at the end of May, Netanyahu will have to answer to the court for allegations of – inter alia – corruption and fraud. In the event of a guilty verdict, the government would thus end early. However, the latter is currently not to be expected, since Netanyahu’s lawyers are likely to ensure that the process is protracted for the time being.

L'articolo Israel Has Sworn in its New Government proviene da InsideOver.

The peace plan unveiled by President Donald Trump last week has been met with mixed reactions. The conflict remains highly complicated, and the gap between Israelis and Palestinians remains wide. Whether the plan can bridge this gap is unlikely, as the most significant issues cannot be fixed so simply.

Unresolved Disputes

There is, for one, the continuous dispute over territory. Israel, as well as the Palestinians, continue to claim the same territory between the Mediterranean and the Jordan. The UN partition plan of 1947⁠—which Israel approved and the Palestinians rejected⁠—provided a division of the territory. However, it took the Palestinian leadership till the early 1990s and the Oslo Accords to not only accept the partition plan but also to recognize Israel and its territory. Via the Oslo Accords, however, the Palestinians also concluded that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip should form the territory of a future State of Palestine.

Two-State Solution?

A two-state solution remains the most likely option to ensure lasting peace. The UN Security Council has repeatedly confirmed this goal⁠—the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel —with the support of the United States, most recently in 2016. Trump’s peace plan reaffirms this vision.

However, Israelis in the West Bank, in particular, see their territory and religious rights as non-negotiable and they consider themselves to be living in the Biblical heart of Israel. Over the past few decades⁠—facilitated by all Israeli governments⁠—more than 130 settlements have now been created in which hundreds of thousands of Israelis live. Most importantly, large sections of the Israeli settler movement reject any Palestinian statehood, which, by all accounts, makes a Palestinian state in the West Bank highly unlikely, if not impossible.

Israeli Settlers In The West Bank

Hundreds of thousands of settlers live in the West Bank, around 60 percent of which is already controlled by Israel. Previous solutions provided land swap, compensation for Palestinians to compensate for some settlements that were to be added to Israeli territory. Naturally, from an Israeli perspective, security issues play a crucial role as well. Israel insists on controlling the Jordan Valley and, thus, on the control of the fertile Palestinian suburbs and the border to Jordan.

Israel’s Perspective On Palestinian Freedom Of Movement

This control remains essential not only for military reasons for Israel but also for controlling movements of Palestinian refugees, which remains another major issue in the conflict and one, that is de facto not being solved in the current Trump peace plan. During the war in the years around Israel’s founding in 1948, around 700,000 Palestinians were displaced or fled from what is the state of Israel today. They fled not only to the Gaza Strip and what is now the West Bank, but also to neighboring countries, especially to Jordan, but also Lebanon and Syria. These displaced people and their descendants, who continue to see themselves as Palestine refugees have now reached a total of several million. However, a return to the West Bank would significantly change the demographic, social, and security situation for Israelis, which is why Israel adamantly rejects the “right to return” as demanded by the Palestinians.

The Key Importance Of Religion In The Israel-Palestine Conflict

Religion plays a significant role also. The number of ultra-Orthodox and national-religious Jews who are close to the settler movement is growing disproportionately, while on the Palestinian side, radical Islamists dominate the Gaza Strip in particular.

The city of Jerusalem continues to play a crucial role as it is of the highest importance for Judaism as well as Islam. In Jerusalem, the wailing wall is on the Temple Mount, which is also the plateau of what Muslims call Al Aqsa, one of their holiest mosques. The United Nations partition decision of 1947 envisaged Jerusalem as a UN-administered neutral Corpus Separatum. However, both sides strongly opposed their holy site becoming the subject of international bureaucracy.

Moreover, Palestinians⁠—as well as Israel⁠—claim Jerusalem as their undivided capital. After the Six-Day War in 1967, in which Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel, Israel won decisively and took over the whole of Jerusalem while extending Israeli legislation to the entire city and finally formally annexing its zones of control. For Israel, Jerusalem is thus an indivisible Israeli capital, while the Palestinian leadership claims the eastern part of the city, which is still mostly Palestinian, as its capital.

The Trump administration had strengthened the Israeli position even before submitting its peace plan by moving the American embassy to (West) Jerusalem. Now Trump emphasized that Jerusalem remains the “undivided” capital of Israel, under which Palestinians would be granted the aforementioned part of eastern Jerusalem to create their capital.

The Conflict Is Almost Impossible To Solve

However, the American efforts have stalled already, as the Palestinians have rejected the peace plan vehemently. Due to the aforementioned reasons, the conflict remains almost impossible to solve, and even adjustments in the peace plan will likely bring no change. Israel, on the one hand, is interested in protecting its status quo and the Jewish identity of Israel and thus simply will not make any significant concessions on territory or right of return, while Palestinians, on the other hand, tend to forget that their demands cannot include the eradication of Israel nor a return of refugees.

L'articolo Why The Trump Peace Plan Won’t Work proviene da InsideOver.

The Israel-Palestine peace plan presented by US President Donald Trump early last week has been met with expected and massive resistance from Palestinians on all levels. Now Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is responding by threatening to cease all remaining relations with the United States and Israel.

Why Is Abbas Pushing Back So Strongly Against The Deal?

At an emergency meeting of the Arab League in Cairo following the deal’s unveiling, Abbas said the Palestinian Authority was planning to “break all ties” with Israel and the United States, including on security-related issues. Specifically, Abbas sent a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US government to inform them that:

“There will be no relationship with Israel and the United States, including security, given that previous agreements have not been respected.” He further stated that the United States’ Middle East plan was a “violation of the Oslo Accords,” which were signed with Israel in the 1990s. Israel, as the “occupying power” of the Palestinian Territories, needed to take responsibility,” Abbas’ letter continued.

Abbas’ reaction is not a surprise, however. Nor is the threat of ceasing all relations. The last time it occurred was only three years ago, in December 2019, when President Trump announced that the US embassy would be relocated to Jerusalem. Abbas, moreover, repeatedly threatened to cease security coordination with Israel but has yet to implement any of these past threats. In particular, security cooperation with Israel has continued on a de facto basis.

‘The Trash Can Of History’

Immediately after Trump’s Middle East plan was published, Abbas announced that it would “land in the trash can of history,” while the Islamist terrorist group Hamas in Gaza immediately described the plan as nonsense and announced that it would fight it “by all means”⁠—which, in Hamas’ case is a euphemism for revolting acts of terrorism.

In the run-up to the Cairo meeting, Abbas had announced that the meeting would “request support and backing for the Palestinian position by the Arab League.” He was not inaccurate. According to the Arab League’s Secretary-General Aboul Gheit, the peace plan would lead to a scenario in which there are two different classes of citizens, with the Palestinians being second class citizens. Moreover, the US government’s proposal would bring neither stability nor peace, but would only sow conflict and suffering for another 100 years, according to Gheit. Accordingly, the Arab League rejected the plan and called it “unfair” in a later released statement, which concluded that the peace plan did not meet the Palestinians’ “minimum rights and expectations.”

Trump: Plan Should Enable A ‘Realistic Two-State Solution’

Trump announced his long-awaited plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Washington in the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the previous Tuesday. According to Trump, the plan should enable a “realistic two-state solution,” with Jerusalem being the “undivided capital” of Israel.

According to the plan, the Palestinians would be given the opportunity to establish their own state in parts of the West Bank, the capital of which would be Abu Dis, a suburb of East Jerusalem.

Palestinians Keep Rejecting Peace

The rejection by the Palestinians is not a surprise. In the previous twenty years alone, the Palestinians had rejected three peace deals and offered to establish their own state eventually. In the summer of 2000, Bill Clinton held intensive peace talks between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, which culminated in a comprehensive peace plan: the Clinton Parameters. Despite significant concessions the plan required from Israel, Barak accepted Clinton’s proposal. Palestinian leader Arafat, on the other hand, rejected the plan and immediately initiated a new terror campaign against Israeli civilians upon his return, known as the Second intifada.

Israeli PM Olmert’s Generous 2008 Peace Offer

In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Abbas after extensive talks and presented a comprehensive peace plan. Olmert’s plan would have attached the large Israeli settlements to Israel, in return providing Palestinians the same Israeli territory and dividing Jerusalem. Olmert even stated that he had reached a preliminary agreement with Abbas on refugees and the Palestinian “right of return.” In summary: Olmert offered an almost complete withdrawal from the West Bank and the abandonment of Israeli control over Jerusalem’s old city. Abbas and the Palestinians nevertheless refused.

Netanyahu Tried in 2010, Palestinians Turn Down Peace Again

In early 2010, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu imposed a ten-month moratorium on settlement building in the West Bank after publicly declaring his support for a future Palestinian state. However, Netanyahu insisted the Palestinians themselves would have to play their part to earn this Israeli goodwill gesture. The Palestinians immediately rejected the approach on the grounds that Netanyahu’s plan was “insufficient.”

Direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority resumed nine months later. However, a coalition of 13 Palestinian factions launched a campaign of attacks against Israeli civilians⁠—including a series of pass-by shots and rocket attacks on Israeli cities⁠—to stop the ongoing negotiations. It worked, and the talks ceased at the end of September 2010. Besides, the partial moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank expired, and Netanyahu refused to extend it unless the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state. Once again, the Palestinians refused to make any efforts to continue the talks or accept the gesture of goodwill.

A Spiral of Violence

The question of whether the Palestinian leadership seeks peace has become even more relevant with the rejection of the Trump peace plan. To date, there have been no initiatives by the Palestinians nor serious visions for peace. Israel, which, by all means, has the right to defend itself, has arguably made mistakes as well. For example, it has been argued that the far superior military force Israel possesses has been utilized excessively at times and subsequently caused significant collateral damages including civilian casualties—an advertisement for Hamas and its message to the Palestinian people.

Nonetheless, a Palestinian state without a new approach, any negotiations or compromises on their part will de facto never exist⁠—which is comforting.

L'articolo The Palestinian Reaction To The Deal proviene da InsideOver.

Instead of being seen as an opportunity for peace, US President Donald Trump’s one-sided “Deal Of The Century” hit Palestine like an earthquake. Supposedly aimed at furthering peace efforts in the decades-long Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the deal was instead seen by Palestinians as the “slap of the century.”

More About The Deal

The deal—which gives Israel the possibility of formal annexation of occupied territories—was announced on Tuesday, January 28 by Trump in a White House gathering where Israel’s indicted President Benjamin Netanyahu was also present.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected the plan soon after its announcement, deeming it unjust toward the Palestinian people. “Jerusalem is not for sale, our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain,” he said. “And your deal—the conspiracy—will not pass.”

Deal Falls Short Of Giving ‘Minimum Rights’ To Palestinians: Arab League

The following Saturday, the Arab League held an emergency meeting in Cairo, Egypt, to discuss Trump’s latest Middle East plan, which did not even meet “the minimum rights and aspirations of Palestinian people.”

The Arab League also said that it would not cooperate with the United States to execute the plan, adding that Israel should not implement it by force.

In the meeting, Abbas also announced that the Palestinian Authority was cutting all ties with the United States and Israel, including those relating to security cooperation. Palestinian Authority security forces have long cooperated with Israel in policing some areas such as in the occupied West Bank, and have also worked with other agencies such as the C.I.A. in intelligence sharing.

‘My Vision Presents A Win-Win Opportunity’: Trump

Trump and other U.S. officials said they expected Palestinians to object to the deal, but had nonetheless hoped they would find a compromise further down the line. The 181-page-long plan is said to be the product of a three-year effort by Trump’s advisers Avi Berkowitz, Jason Greenblatt and the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.

“My vision presents a win-win opportunity for both sides, a realistic two-state solution that resolves the risk of Palestinian statehood to Israel’s security,” Trump said.

Unrest In Palestine After Plan’s Unveiling

Palestinian officials denounced the plan even more as they have not had any input into it. Trump also disregarded inviting Palestinian representatives to the White House gathering on Tuesday where the plan was unveiled. Following the announcement of the plan, thousands of Palestinians took to the streets in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Although the plan includes what Trump called a four-year freeze on new Israeli settlement activity on Palestinian soil, the plan proposes, inter alia, a U.S. recognition of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank and of Jerusalem as the “undivided” capital of Israel, providing Israel with formal control over territories that were seized during the war or belong to the Palestinian Authority.

What Palestine Wants

Palestinians demand to have the right to build a Palestinian state —with Jerusalem as its capital— based on pre-1967 maps. According to these borders, great swathes of the land still belonged to Palestine before Israel seized them in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War.

“I will not have it in my history that I sold Jerusalem,” Abbas said.

The United States had already declared in November 2019 that it no longer regarded Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank as inconsistent with international law, whereas the vast majority of countries say they are.

Palestinian Capital To Be At Abu Dis

The plan envisions the creation of a demilitarized Palestinian state that excludes occupied territories and settlements, which it would concede to Israeli control, and have its capital in Abu Dis, an impoverished village just outside Jerusalem. Abu Dis stands at the demarcation of territories by the high wall that Israel has built all through East Jerusalem.

“The physical barrier should remain in place and should serve as a border between the capitals of the two parties,” the plan stated.

The plan also required that Palestinians must agree to a security arrangement with Israel and halt attacks by the Iran-backed Hamas. Earlier this month, tensions between Iran and the United States were particularly on the rise after a drone attack that killed Iran’s second-most-powerful man Qasem Soleimani.

Those tensions also bore upon regional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—who previously encouraged Trump’s new plan—along with Egypt, where the Arab League meeting was held. In fact, representatives from Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates took part in the White House gathering when the plan was announced.

Will The US Stick With This Peace Deal?

Critics say the United States may ultimately strike the deal as Iran’s threat looms in the region and dominates their attention, but the plan is particularly politically favorable to Trump and Netanyahu, as one goes through an impeachment trial and the second faces indictment on corruption charges.

That same Tuesday on which Trump announced the plan, Netanyahu was formally indicted in court on charges of corruption on three different cases. But Netanyahu still strives for political survival as he looks ahead to the upcoming elections—his third in less than a year—next month.

Abbas To Speak To UN Next Week

Palestine’s U.N. mission said Abbas will speak in the U.N. Security Council next week, seeking for a vote on a draft resolution on the issue within the 15-member council. But the United States is expected to veto such resolutions, which will then allow the Palestinian Authority to take the text  to the 193-member U.N. General Assembly, where a vote should demonstrate the international community’s position on Trump’s deal.

Earlier, on Friday, February 31, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft warned Palestinians that objecting to the deal will only “repeat the failed pattern of the last seven decades.”

In a statement, Israel’s U.N. mission also said that it was preparing for Palestinian U.N. action and that it was “working to thwart these efforts and will lead a concerted diplomatic campaign with the United States.”

L'articolo Trump’s Middle East Peace Plan Stirs Further Tensions proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump finally unveiled his Israeli-Palestinian peace plan on Jan. 28. The plan has been shrouded in secrecy and could well bolster peace in the region or deteriorate the security situation. Success may also hinge on the amount of diplomatic efforts that are dedicated to solving the most contentious issues in the coming days.

Reactions To The Trump Peace Plan

The plan has already elicited mixed reactions among pundits with Israeli Arab political analyst Marwan Bishara describing it as “opportunism, populism and cynicism all wrapped in one deal…it is as tragic as it is laughable.”  However, there is the belief in some quarters that the deal could pave the way for future negotiations between Israel and Palestine in reaching a viable two state solution.

What Is The Core Goal Of The Deal?

It appears the aim of the deal as highlighted in Trump’s remarks is to achieve long-term security for Israel by providing economic incentives to Palestine. “Palestinians are in poverty and violence, exploited by those seeking to use them as pawns to advance terrorism and extremism. They deserve a far better life,” Trump said while unveiling the plan in the White House.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who was also present at the peace plan’s release—described Trump as “the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House.” Netanyahu also added that he supported the plan because it recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over sections of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank, which are regarded as vital for Israel’s security. The timing of the announcement, however, raised some eyebrows with observers claiming it was meant to boost Netanyahu’s standing as elections loom and his political troubles persist, while others claimed it was meant to distract the public from Trump’s impeachment hearings.

Trump’s Meeting With Israeli Opposition Leader Benny Gantz

Earlier in the day before meeting Netanyahu, Trump had held discussions with Benny Gantz, who is also a front runner in the race for Israel’s leadership. This meeting was possibly done to avoid accusations that Trump was providing political leverage to Netanyahu with his peace plan release, or just because Trump wanted to win the confidence of both leaders since either of them could become Israel’s next Prime Minister judging by the current political uncertainty.

So far Gantz has expressed his satisfaction with Trump’s plan saying, “the President’s peace plan is a significant and historic milestone indeed.”

Palestinian Reaction To Trump’s Plan

The plan was outright rejected on the Palestinian side, with leaders describing it as dead on arrival. “After the nonsense that we have heard today, we say a thousand nos,” said Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas after the plan was announced.

This reaction comes hot on the heels of reports that he had refused to take a phone call from Trump to discuss the plan before it was unveiled. “They called me from Washington and I did not pick up the phone. I said no and I will continue to say no .., we are going for difficult days and we are beginning to bear the consequences,“ Abbas was reported to have said.

Since June last year Trump has been dangling a $50 billion investment fund carrot to the Palestinians if they accepted his proposal. This was unveiled in Bahrain last year by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is largely credited with crafting the plan. In reference to the $50 billion investment fund, Kushner said a deal could unlock prosperity for the Palestinians and security for Israel. The views among most Palestinians is that Trump’s aim is to use economic bribery to make them accept what they call Israeli occupation.

Palestinian officials have been skeptical of the plan ever since reports about it began to emerge. Some officials warned that Palestine would withdraw from the Oslo Accords if Trump went on to announce his plan.

“If Netanyahu begins annexation of Palestinian territory officially, this means Isreal’s withdrawal from Oslo Accords and agreements signed,” said the Palestinian chief negotiator Dr Saeb Erakat last week, while the foreign minister called for an international rejection of the plan saying it could jeopardize regional security.

Benefits Of The Deal

Despite the deal clearly favoring Israel, many analysts have agreed that it gives much more to Palestinians than what had been expected. The proposal of a two state solution as the core of the plan was a big step from an American perspective that has always resented Palestinian sovereignty.

According to the plan, the only condition that Palestinians have to meet to pave the way for the State of Palestine is to fight terrorism, stopping “pay to slay” payments for attacks on Israeli soldiers, implementing steps towards free speech and introducing political reforms.

Although the plan offers Palestine more territory, it gives Israel full control over major settlement blocks in the West Bank and establishes Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. For Palestine the plan proposes that “the sovereign capital of the State of Palestine should be in the section of East Jerusalem located in all areas east and north of the existing security barrier including Kufr Aqab, the eastern part of Shujaat and Abu Dis, and could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the State of Palestine.”

Even though Israel will maintain control of Jerusalem, Palestinians will continue having access to religious sites in the city. “Jerusalem’s holy sites should remain open and available for peaceful worshipers and tourists of all faith.” “People of every faith should be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif in a manner that that is fully respectful to their religion, taking into account the times of each religion’s prayers and holidays as well as other religious factors.”

The plan also calls for a dematerialized Palestinian State with Israel maintaining overall security until Palestinians show “capability to secure the areas. The more the Palestinians show they can secure their areas and cooperate with Israel, the less Israel will have to do in terms of maintaining security,” the report reads.

In summary, there are several reasons why Trump’s proposal could fail. It is pro-Israel and it proposes only 70 percent of the West Bank should go to Palestine compared to the 94 to 96 percent proposed by President Bill Clinton. It sets the uprooting of Hamas in the Gaza as a precondition of statehood and other benefits that are unlikely to occur very soon. Nevertheless, although the proposal is likely to lead to violence in the near future, it could also open up opportunities for negotiations leading to long lasting peace.

L'articolo Trump’s Plan: Recipe For Chaos Or Giving Peace A Chance? proviene da InsideOver.

President Trump unveiled his long-awaited Middle-East peace plan with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, Jan. 28. According to both, the plan provides for a “realistic two-state solution” for Israel and the Palestinians. While Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, the Palestinians are to be given a capital of their own in East Jerusalem.

More Details On The Peace Plan

The plan includes concrete proposals for a solution—different, according to Trump, to all previous attempts that aimed to provide peace since the Lyndon B. Johnson days. Both Netanyahu and his competitor Benny Gantz had assured Trump of their support for the plan, which they consider would make the region safer and more prosperous and would be a win for both sides. The latter is crucial, as Israel’s election is scheduled for March 2. A scenario in which Gantz becomes Israel’s new Prime Minister is not inconceivable.

Netanyahu thanked Trump for his initiative and this “fantastic deal,” which, most importantly, recognized Israel’s territorial claims in the West Bank. Moreover, Netanyahu was pleased that Trump had put an end to the “big lie” that these places were areas occupied by Israel.

Netanyahu was ready to negotiate with the Palestinians about a “path” to a future Palestinian state. For this to materialize, however, the Palestinians would have to recognize the Jewish state first. In return, Israel would agree to a four-year stop on settlements, while a Palestinian state is being negotiated.

Palestinians Would Be Rewarded For Compliance

The Palestinians should surrender their weapons and accept Israel’s responsibility for security in the West Bank. Over time, the Palestinians could “take more responsibility for security,” and Israel could withdraw its operations there, while it retains the right to defend itself against “any threat” to its security. An exact schedule was not provided, however.

If approved, the Palestinians would receive help and investment to reduce poverty and unemployment, Trump said. The Palestinian economy could “double or triple” if the plan were adopted, the President promised. The US and numerous other states are ready to “help the Palestinians in many ways” if they are ready to make peace and end violence and terrorism, Trump said.

Concerns That Plan Is Not Workable

However, the most recent reactions have not indicated that peace is currently conceivable. The plan’s framework had been publicized in advance, and the Palestinians had already criticized it as a “conspiracy against Palestinians.” They threatened to withdraw from the Oslo Accords. Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh claimed the plan was violating international law also.

Meanwhile, the Islamic State had issued an audio message on Monday calling on all Muslims to attack Jews and Jewish settlements to cause the Middle East peace plan to fail. Tehran had an opinion on the plan also. An adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called it “one-sided” in a tweet, full of “sanctions and impositions.”

Today, a representative of the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas in the Gaza Strip called Trump’s plan “aggressive,” the proposal regarding Jerusalem “nonsense”: “Jerusalem will always be the land of the Palestinians,” the terrorists claimed.

Palestinian Protesters Burn US Flags: ‘The Plan Will Not Get Through’

Thousands of Palestinians have taken to the streets in Gaza City. On Tuesday, protesters burned tires, US flags, and pictures of Trump under the cries of “The plan will not get through.” There were also protests against the Middle East plan in the city of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. In Nablus and Ramallah in the West Bank, rallies are planned to last until late at night.

The most indicative response so far, however, has come from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said: “1000 times no to this deal”. It was not the deal of the century, but “the slap of the century.” Abbas announced that he would immediately start taking measures “that require changing the role of the Palestinian Authority in accordance with resolutions taken by the PLO.” He did not specify the nature of the measures.

Negotiations are all about compromises. However, not only have the Palestinians historically not been inclined to grant these, but their track record of missing out on several previous opportunities is well documented.

The Plan Is A Path To Peace—If The Palestinians Will Take It

The plan announced today is yet another significant opportunity for Palestinians for a way out of a—by their own choice—current devastating situation and towards independence, dignity, and doubling their territory. Moreover, it is a path to peace in the region and prosperity via the 50-billion-dollar economic plan that has the power to fully transform Palestinian lives forever.

The plan unveiled today will by no means be written in stone, and adjustments can always be made if the Palestinians prefer it and both sides agree. However, the immediate posturing and hate by the actors involved that has yet again transpired indicates that peace has never been, and likely never will be, on top of the Palestinian agenda.

L'articolo President Trump Unveils Long Awaited Middle-East Peace Plan proviene da InsideOver.

Since the advent of Donald Trump to the White House, the United States has perhaps been the most unpredictable state in the international arena. This presidency is marked by breaking away from long-standing consensus positions, such as the targeting of NATO or throwing weight behind notorious dictators. 

Under this political backdrop, it should not have been surprising when Secretary Mike Pompeo announced that the United States no longer views Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories illegal. 

“After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees… (the) establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law,” he said. 

The statement signified a shift from the country’s 40-year old position when the State Department in 1978 gave a legal opinion on settlements, calling them “inconsistent with international law”.

Unsurprisingly, the move was hailed by Israeli leadership including Benjamin Netanyahu and the other prime ministerial contender, Benny Gantz, with the former saying it “rights a historical wrong”. On the other side of the border, Palestinians were disappointed as usual with President Mahmoud Abbas’s spokesperson commenting that the US is “not qualified or authorised to cancel the resolutions of international law, and has no right to grant legality to any Israeli settlement.”

This wasn’t the first time in recent history where the US has changed its status quo to adopt a completely pro-Israeli policy. It started with Trump tweeting that America now recognises Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state and announced to shift the US embassy from Tel Aviv. Not too long after, he gave a green signal to Israeli sovereignty over occupied Golan Heights. 

Legality under international law

The issue of settlements has been a key point of contention in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, with international consensus largely against it. As per Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also prohibits the “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory”.   

The opinion of the United Nations is not much different and the multilateral body has reaffirmed many a time that settlements are illegal, most recently in 2016 through Security Council Resolution 2334, when it called them a “flagrant violation” of international law which has no “legal validity”. 

Similarly, the European Union was quick to clarify its stance, with Foreign Policy Chief Federica Mogherini recorded as saying “The EU calls on Israel to end all settlement activity, in line with its obligations as an occupying power.” 

Irreversible or not?

One question that arises after this latest decision is its permanence since the move is a product of an unpredictable Trump administration which has often tried to break away with consistent positions, rather than a shift in the policy of the State Department. 

If one of the many contenders currently competing for the presidential elections, there might be a reversal of this decision, perhaps among many others. Though that heavily depends on partisan lines with Republicans generally more likely to favour Israel. 

Take the former Vice President Joe Biden, who condemned the decision in his statement that said: “This decision harms the cause of diplomacy, takes us further away from the hope of a two-state solution, and will only further inflame tensions in the region.” 

The other two main Democratic candidates were even fiercer in their responses with Bernie Sanders tweeting “Israeli settlements in occupied territory are illegal. This is clear from international law and multiple United Nations resolutions. Once again, Mr. Trump is isolating the United States and undermining diplomacy by pandering to his extremist base.”

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Warren unambiguously mentioned reversing this move on her Twitter: “Another blatantly ideological attempt by the Trump administration to distract from its failures in the region. Not only do these settlements violate international law—they make peace harder to achieve. As president, I will reverse this policy and pursue a two-state solution.”

What about the two-state solution?

For decades, the international community had largely ignored the issue of settlements even if they condemned it in principle primarily because Israel was successful in convincing them that any solution would come through negotiations, with US backing arguing and lobbying the same. 

The consensus position according to international law assumes the temporary nature of settlements, but the latest moves unilaterally seeks to change that. This fact might not sit too well with other major powers, who had until now mostly shied away from recognising the Palestinian state since it was to be done through UN or other multilateral channel. 

But if the US willing to completely disregard international law, as well as the view of the global community, then they too might not be very considerate in abiding by the old consensus. Moreover, blows after blows to the two-state solution by its key architect itself may finally push Palestinians to give up the idea of peace altogether.

L'articolo Trump Breaks Status Quo on Israeli Settlements proviene da InsideOver.