NZFOI: Rob Berg’s reaction to Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” was published alongside a reaction from John Minto. Minto’s views are his own, and not ours, we re-publish this without any endorsement.

It would be easy to throw up our hands in horror at the announcement of the so-called “deal of the century” but that would be pointless. We’ve all known for a long time that this “deal” would be a boon to Israel and a kick in the guts for Palestinians.

The Trump administration has given the Israeli government the green light to: continue building Jewish-only settlements on Palestinian land; annex most of the occupied West Bank; continue its ongoing military occupation of Palestine and the siege of Gaza; refuse Palestinian refugees the right to return to their land and homes and to continue its religious and ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem.

For the Palestinian side there is nothing aside from a vague reference to a hollowed out Palestinian state that would resemble apartheid South Africa’s bantustans. As the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem says – “the deal is like Swiss Cheese – the Israelis get the cheese while the Palestinians get the holes.”

The US “deal” rewards the oppressor and abuses the oppressed. Politically Trump is making a strong play for the evangelical Christian vote in the coming US elections. These are Christians who confuse the Israel of the Old Testament in the Bible with the modern political state of Israel.

On the Israeli side the “deal” is a gift to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who faces a third election in early March after failing to get enough support in the previous two elections to form a government. Netanyahu hope the deal will get him over the line this time.

Meanwhile none of the issues of profound injustice and oppression by Israel of Palestinians will go away, irrespective of the political manoeuvrings of Trump or Netanyahu.

So what is the way forward for Palestine?

The answer is surprisingly simple and was contained in a report last October from the United Nations Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur for Palestine, Mr Michael Lynk. 

The Lynk report says the international community has a responsibility and legal obligation to compel Israel to end its 52 year-long “occu-annexation” of Palestinian territory and remove barriers preventing Palestinian self-determination. Lynk points out that this occupation is the longest in the modern world and says it is “endlessly sustainable without decisive international intervention because of the grossly asymmetrical balance of power on the ground”. 

He says “Accountability is the key to opening the titanium cage that is the permanent occupation. The international community has issued countless resolutions and declarations critical of the never-ending Israeli occupation. The time has long past to match these criticisms with effective consequences.” Well said.

To remedy this, Michael Lynk recommends that the international community should devise a list of effective countermeasures against Israel which would be “appropriate and proportional” to the circumstances. 

He suggests some modern examples of applying pressure, such as diplomatic public statements, trade sanctions, flight bans, travel restrictions and reduction or suspension of aid.

Most importantly he says that “should Israel remain unmoved, (the international community) should apply and escalate the range of its targeted countermeasures until compliance had been achieved.”

After the “deal of the century” this is the only viable way forward.

The world faced a similar situation in the 1970s and 1980s with regard to the racist South African regime. While the great mass of humanity supported the struggle for self-determination of black South Africans, white South Africa was strongly supported by the UK and the US with leaders Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan respectively giving unwavering support to its brutal oppression of blacks.

Despite this iron-clad support from key Western governments a critical factor in forcing democratic change was the people and governments around the world implementing a wide range of boycotts against the regime – sporting, trade, investment and diplomatic boycotts were all part of the mix – which helped bring irresistible pressure for change.

Israel’s brutal military occupation and its racist apartheid policies towards Palestinians cannot and will not survive international boycott action. 

South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize winner Desmond Tutu is clear on the importance of the approach proposed by Michael Lynk: 

“In South Africa, we could not have achieved our democracy without the help of people around the world, who through the use of non-violent means, such as boycotts and divestment, encouraged their governments and other corporate actors to reverse decades-long support for the apartheid regime.”

And Archbishop Tutu has a message for governments like New Zealand. 

“Those who turn a blind eye to injustice actually perpetuate injustice. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

Michael Lynk’s report points the way. Our New Zealand government should be at the forefront in supporting this United Nations proposed approach.

Let’s do this!

Source

On 29 January 2020, president Trump finally presented his long-awaited ‘Deal of the Century’, his vision to end the ongoing conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, a conflict which has been going on in some form or another for over seventy years. Whilst the details of the plan may not have been previously known, the reactions from the Israeli and Palestinian sides could not have been more predictable.

As has been the case since the days of the British Mandate, the UN 1947 Partition Plan and many other opportunities, most latterly in 2000 and 2008, the Israelis have always agreed to what has been offered, even when the concessions have been painful, such as the division of Jerusalem, or withdrawal from Hebron. The Palestinians, and Arab nations before them, have never failed to say “no”. Most famous was the 3 no’s in Khartoum in September 1967. “No to peace with Israel. No to recognition with Israel. No to negotiations with Israel”. Fast forward to 2020 and the ‘Deal of the Century’, and we have almost exactly the same response from president Abbas, “We say 1,000 ‘no’s to this deal”.

The Palestinians may feel the ‘deal’ does not give them what they wanted, but even when offered a far greater deal by Prime Minister Barak in 2000 which included 92% of the West Bank, much to president Bill Clinton’s frustration and amazement, the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat said “no”. And then in 2008 they were offered an even better deal by then Prime Minister Olmert. This deal offered the Palestinians 98% of the West Bank with land swaps to account for the remaining 2%, East Jerusalem as their Capital, and the dismantling of Israeli settlements in the proposed Palestinian State. Again, this time by Mahmoud Abbas, the answer was “no”.

The Trump deal goes far short of the Olmert offer, and the Palestinians run the risk of losing everything if their intransigent approach to peace with the world’s only Jewish State continues in the same vein as it has for over 70 years.

Israel fits into New Zealand approximately 13 times and is roughly the size of Canterbury. Giving up any land has a significant impact on its size and ability to defend itself. To ask of Israel to put its existence at risk is something that no one or no country should expect. Yet Israel has continually offered the Palestinians land for peace, just as it did with both Egypt and Jordan before it. Israel also unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005, which has now become a strong hold for terrorist activity heavily backed by the Iranians. The concerns of Israelis are more than justified.

Israel has no error for margin. The first war it loses, is its last. It is difficult to comprehend this reality from our relative safety here in New Zealand, yet Israel has shown continuous willing for compromise. Each time, the offer of compromise, the offer to agree on a peace deal through direct negotiations has ended up with Palestinian rejection. Yet, the Palestinians offer no viable alternatives. Instead they insist on all of pre-1967 East Jerusalem, including the Old City and Judaism’s most accessible Holy site, the Western Wall, being part of ‘Palestine’. And they insist on the ‘right of return’ to all Palestinian refugees and their descendants. A ‘right’ afforded to no other people in the world. Yet they insist on this because they know it will ultimately lead to the end of the Jewish State.

And here is the crux of the matter. Until the Palestinians accept that Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people is not only here to stay, but has a right to exist in the spiritual and historical homeland of the Jewish people, peace will be as far away as ever. Yet, the Trump Plan, with all its flaws, presents both the Israelis and the Palestinians with an opportunity. An opportunity as a starting point for direct talks and negotiations with the aim of a real and lasting peace, one that recognises the rights and aspirations of both people.

This may or may not be the last opportunity for the two State Solution to come to fruition. Instead of a “thousand no’s” hopefully Abbas will see this as a chance to bring a life of peace and prosperity to both Israelis and Palestinians. His final legacy. Hopefully he will choose a path to peace rather than stay on the road of conflict.

Source