Trump’s ‘assault’ against peace in the Middle East

Following therecent visit by Israel’s Netanyahu to America’s Trump, the long hope for a solution to the Middle East crisis would seem to have been taken back to where it was before the eight years of Obama’s presidency in America.Breaking away from his predecessor’s standpoint on the Middle East crisis, President Donald Trump has adopted […]

Following therecent visit by Israel’s Netanyahu to America’s Trump, the long hope for a solution to the Middle East crisis would seem to have been taken back to where it was before the eight years of Obama’s presidency in America.Breaking away from his predecessor’s standpoint on the Middle East crisis, President Donald Trump has adopted a vaguer position on Palestinian statehood and a more lenient approach that seeks to favour Israel in West Bank settlements. Trump’s decision to also move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to fortify Israel’s claim to the city as its capital is another indication for a new Israeli-American relation described by Trump as ‘a new day’.For Netanyahu, the talks with Trump are an opportunity to reset ties after a frequently combative relationship with Obama.

In a joint press conference with Netanyahu, Trump offered unwavering support for Israel. In a striking departure from longtime American policy, Trump also refrained from supporting a two -state solution to the Israeli – Palestinian conflict, saying he would accedeto whatever solution the sides agreed upon. Netanyahu pleased his coalition partners by holding back from mentioning a potential Palestinian state as well. “I’m looking at two states and one state, and I like the one both parties like”, Trump told a joint news conference with Netanyahu, adding “I can live with either one”.

The one-state idea would be deeply problematic for both sides. One concept would be two systems for two peoples, which Palestinians would see as apartheid. Another version would mean equal rights for all, including for Palestinians in an annexed West Bank, but that would compromise Israel’s Jewish character.Martin Indyk, a former Middle East negotiator under Obama described President Trump’s action as“another nail in the coffin of the peace process, which already had a lot of nails in it”.

In January this year, the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted a resolution that calls for a two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East. The resolutionrequired Israel to end settlements construction in occupied Palestine. The fact that this resolution was allowed to pass with spontaneous cheers made it look historic; thus illustrating the strongest rebuke made by President Barrack Obama’s administration against Israeli policy. Fourteen out of fifteen countries supported the resolution, while the United States (US) abstained; drawing condemnations from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US President-elect Donald Trump. The US abstained from the January 2017 UN vote in order to halt Israeli settlement activities in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

Speaking in Washington, DC after that historic UN Security Council vote, the US Secretary of State, John Kerry, warned Israel that it would never achieve peace if one state is its choice because “Israel can only choose to be Jewish or democratic but cannot be both”. Kerry defended the US decision to abstain from the UN vote stating that the US voted in accordance with its values and conscience. Explaining further, Kerry noted that “no one thinking seriously about peace can ignore the reality of the threat which settlements pose to peace”; adding that trends indicate a comprehensive effort to take West Bank lands for Israel and prevent any Palestinian development there. As Kerry rightly noted in his lengthy and passionatespeech, the status-quo is leaning towards one state and perpetual occupation. 

While Netanyahu argued that the conflict is not about settlements but about “Israel’s very right to exit”, the Palestinian leadership is insisting on the 1967 borders, which Israel has refused to accept. John Kerry had earlier advised that Israel and a future Palestine should exist on the territory they held before the 1967 war, which could be achieved through “equivalent swaps” of land only by mutual consent. After the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 242 calling for Israeli withdrawal from the territories occupied during the war in exchange for termination of all claims or states of belligerency.

The violation of the UN resolution through the building of settlements on Palestinian lands shall be illegal under international law. Israel and supporters of its settlement policy shall be liable for prosecution at International Criminal Court at The Hague. Freedom, justice and equality are universal human rights which Palestinians have long been denied. 

For decades, the UN has been prompting the two-state solution which calls for two separate states for the two groups of people in the conflict, Israelis and Palestinians. The framework of the two-state solution provides that the states shall exist side by side within secured and recognized borders. This framework dates back to 1937 when the first proposal for the creation of Jewish and Arab states in the British Mandate of Palestine was made in the Peel commission Report. 

Since then, there have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution. They include the 1991 Madrid conference which was followed by the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit. In early 2001, there was the Taba negotiation. In 2002, the Arab league proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The 2013-14 peace talk was another failed initiative. 

The two-state solution is a compromise that would guarantee lasting peace in the six-decades-old conflict. Palestinianshave shown interest in a two-state solution since the mid-1970s just as its mainstream leadership embraced the concept since 1982 Arab summit in Fez. Indeed, even respectable Israeli politicians are also infavour of a two-state solution. We therefore call on Israeli authorities to stop any further construction on occupied territories because such amounts to eroding and imperiling UN aspiration for a two-state solution and peace in the Middle East. Unless Israel accepts the realities of the UN resolution, it would seem to have chosen the path of apartheid. May Allah (SWT) guide Trump and his allies to accept the two-state solution, amin.