US-Israeli plan goes against UN resolutions, negates sovereignty of State of Palestine

[TamilNet, Sunday, 02 February 2020, 22:53 GMT]
“A realistic solution would give the Palestinians all the power to govern themselves but not the powers to threaten Israel,” states the so-called Trump peace plan, which was named “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People”. The US-Israeli plan, hatched without Palestinian participation negates Palestinian sovereignty. It proposes the State of Israel to “retain the right to engage in necessary security measures to ensure that the State of Palestine remains demilitarized and non-threatening to the State of Israel”. Furthermore, allowing Israel to annex the territories of occupied Palestine, the plan severely restricts the borders of the State of Palestine to be mostly encapsulated by the State of Israel and refuses East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine.

Although the plan uses the phrase two-state solution, it conceives the State of Palestine as an embedded and pocketed state within the State of Israel. The project proposes tunnels and overpasses to link the Palestinian pockets of lands across the contiguous Israeli territory.



Following are some excerpts from the plan to illustrate its lopsidedness:

“Since 1946, there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict. United Nations resolutions are sometimes inconsistent and sometimes time-bound. These resolutions have not brought about peace. Furthermore, different parties have offered conflicting interpretations of some of the most significant United Nations resolutions, including United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Indeed, legal scholars who have worked directly on critical United Nations resolutions have differed on their meaning and legal effect.”

“While we are respectful of the historic role of the United Nations in the peace process, this Vision is not a recitation of General Assembly, Security Council and other international resolutions on this topic because such resolutions have not and will not resolve the conflict. For too long these resolutions have enabled political leaders to avoid addressing the complexities of this conflict rather than enabling a realistic path to peace.”

“The notion that sovereignty is a static and consistently defined term has been an unnecessary stumbling block in past negotiations. Pragmatic and operational concerns that effect security and prosperity are what is most important.”

“Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city. 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 Kafr Aqab, the eastern part of Shuafat and Abu Dis, and could be named Al Quds or another name as determined by the State of Palestine.”

“A demilitarized State of Palestine will be prohibited from possessing capabilities that can threaten the State of Israel including: weapons systems such as combat aircraft (manned and unmanned); heavy armored vehicles; mines; missiles; rockets; heavy machine guns; laser/radiating weapons; anti-air; anti-armor; anti-ship; military intelligence; offensive cyber and electronic warfare capabilities; production facilities and procurement mechanisms for weapons systems; military infrastructure and training facilities; or any weapons of mass destruction.”

“The State of Israel will maintain the right to dismantle and destroy any facility in the State of Palestine that is used for the production of prohibited weapons or for other hostile purposes. While the State of Israel will use its best efforts to minimize incursions into the State of Palestine, the State of Israel will retain the right to engage in necessary security measures to ensure that the State of Palestine remains demilitarized and non-threatening to the State of Israel, including from terrorist threats.”



* * *

UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory, Professor Michael Lynk, came with a sharp remark on Friday.

“This is not a recipe for a just and durable peace but rather endorses the creation of a 21st century Bantustan in the Middle East. The Palestinian statelet envisioned by the American plan would be scattered archipelagos of non-contiguous territory completely surrounded by Israel, with no external borders, no control over its airspace, no right to a military to defend its security, no geographic basis for a viable economy, no freedom of movement and with no ability to complain to international judicial forums against Israel or the United States.”

“What the Trump plan offers is a one and a half state solution,” Professor Lynk said.

Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories is a permanent agenda item (Number 7) of the UN Human Rights Council.

UN Secretary-General's Spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, has said that the position of the United Nations on the two-State solution has been “defined, throughout the years, by relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions by which the Secretariat is bound.”

“The United Nations remains committed to supporting Palestinians and Israelis in resolving the conflict on the basis of United Nations resolutions, international law, and bilateral agreements and realizing the vision of two States – Israel and Palestine – living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 lines,” Mr Dujarric added.

Also, Norway's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which had been at the heart of the Oslo process, issued a statement warned against taking unilateral steps. “Any annexation of territory by force is unacceptable and in contravention of international law,” said Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide.

“Any initiative to re-activate the peace process must reflect internationally agreed parameters as defined in the Oslo accords and UN Security Council resolutions. The outstanding final status issues, including borders, security, the status of Jerusalem, and the refugee question, must be resolved through direct negotiations between both parties. This framework will continue to be the basis for Norway's chairmanship of the donor group for Palestine (AHLC),” Ms Søreide said.

When US President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the plan as the ‘Deal of the Century’, the ambassadors from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain were present at the White House.

However, the Arab League rejected the deal and urged Arab leaders not to cooperate with Trump Administration to implement it.

The deal, already rejected by the Palestinian Authority, does not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of Palestinian people, the pan-Arab bloc said on Saturday.

In addition to rejecting the ‘deal’, the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has also gone on record stating there would be “no relations at all” with Israel and the United States, including the existing security cooperation.



Abbas has threatened about terminating the security collaboration also in the past without doing it in practice, and it remains to be seen whether he would be prepared to cut it down this time, the observers say.

In the meantime, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is the top body of Islamic Member states would be convening in Saudi Arabia’s capital on Monday to discuss the matter.







External Links:

Al Jazeera:		What does Trump's plan propose for Palestinian territories?
The Guardian:		Palestinians cut ties with Israel and US after rejecting Trump peace plan
United Nations:		“Lopsided Trump Plan” will entrench occupation: UN Special Rapporteur
White House:		Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People
Norwegian Government:		Statement by Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Chronology: