Trump, impatient to claim a Nobel Peace prize, bullies everyone into accepting a madcap peace plan that gives little or no consideration to the Palestinians’ future.
Who gave him authority to decide such matters, and where are the United Nations in all this? And what about international law and the raft of UN resolutions on these matters that are waiting to be implemented? This looks like an attempt to bury them.
The other day we saw Trump and Netanyahu holding hands and smirking as they launched their 20-point so-called peace plan which the war criminal and pro-Israel freak Tony Blair also had a hand in. Trump said Netanyahu had agreed it and Arab countries were onboard, but many will doubt that.
Trump then issued a blood-curdling threat to Hamas that if they didn’t accept his plan within 3 days he would give Israel the green light to carry on with the genocide while he himself, presumably, would continue supplying the ammunition. “All HELL, like no one has ever seen before”, would be let loose, he snarled.
His grand plan is so vague that it can be interpreted in different ways, provides no clear pathway to Palestinian freedom and self-determination, completely bypasses the United Nations, and puts two fingers up to international law. No sane person would agree to it. When Netanyahu got home he pretty well disowned it, repeating that Israel would never allow a Palestinian state to emerge. “It’s not written in the agreement. We said we would strongly oppose a Palestinian state,” he announced. Of course, this has been the Zionist position since Day 1 in 1948. Domination of Palestine from the river to the sea is the very raison-d’etre of the Israel Project and they won’t be deflected. They’ve pursued their criminal ambition for 7 decades, with the US and UK providing diplomatic cover and much more, and they now smell victory.
Hamas have sensibly signalled acceptance in principle of some aspects, subject to more work on the detail. But they are at odds with Trump’s plan in several respects.
In particular, they object to foreign involvement in Gaza’s interim governance. The plan does not identify any Palestinian individual or group by name as being involved in the transition. Instead it says the panel would be supervised by a new international transitional body headed by Trump himself and which would include other members, including former UK prime minister Blair. Hamas said it would agree to hand over Gaza’s administration “to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and supported by Arab and Islamic backing”‘
As for Hamas playing no part in Gaza’s future, the Trump plan says they must “agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form,” and that there will be a “process of demilitarisation of Gaza”. Hamas’s response is that they are part of a “comprehensive Palestinian national framework” and “tied to a collective national position in accordance with relevant international laws and resolutions”. The future of Gaza and the rights of Palestinian people are to be discussed within that national framework, in which Hamas will be included and “will contribute with full responsibility”.
So there’s a considerable gulf. Hamas’s statement did not specifically accept Trump’s 20-point plan although Trump, for his own reasons, pretends it did.
What does the UN say?
Meanwhile the United Nations has savaged the half-baked and, let’s face it, dishonest plan.
A team of 28 independent human rights experts, appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, warn that any peace plan must absolutely safeguard the human rights of Palestinians, and not create further conditions of oppression. “We welcome parts of the peace plan announced by the United States to end the war in Gaza, including a permanent ceasefire, rapid release of unlawfully detained persons, an influx of humanitarian aid under United Nations supervision, no forced displacement from Gaza, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the non-annexation of territory. These are broadly requirements of international law that should not depend on a formal peace plan.”
But they warn that other key elements of the plan are inconsistent with fundamental rules of international law and the 2024 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice which demands that Israel ends its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. “Imposing an immediate peace at any price, regardless of or brazenly against law and justice, is a recipe for further injustice, future violence and instability.”
The experts’ objections include the following:
- The plan does not guarantee the Palestinian right of self-determination as international law requires, and it is subject to vague pre-conditions concerning Gaza’s redevelopment, Palestinian Authority reform, and a “dialogue” between Israel and Palestine. Palestine’s future would thus be at the mercy of decisions by outsiders, not in the hands of Palestinians as international law commands.
- The plan also preserves the failed status quo of requiring more negotiations with Israel, when the Israeli Prime Minister has already declared that Israel would “forcibly resist” statehood. This is blatantly against the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finding that fulfilling the right of self-determination cannot be conditional on negotiations.
- The “temporary transitional government” is not representative of Palestinians and even excludes the Palestinian Authority, which further violates self-determination and lacks legitimacy.
- There are no concrete benchmarks or timeframes for a transition to representative governance, which belongs to the Palestinians only, without foreign interference.
- Oversight by a “Board of Peace” chaired by the US President is not under United Nations authority or transparent multilateral control, while the US is a deeply partisan supporter of Israel and not an “honest broker”. This proposal is reminiscent of colonial practices and must be rejected.
- An “International Stabilisation Force”, outside the control of the Palestinian people and the United Nations as a guarantor, would replace Israeli occupation with a US-led occupation, contrary to Palestinian self-determination.
- Partial Israeli occupation could continue indefinitely through a “security perimeter” inside Gaza’s borders, which is absolutely unacceptable.
- The demilitarisation of Gaza has no end date and, if permanent, could leave it vulnerable to Israeli aggression.
- Nothing is said regarding the demilitarisation of Israel, which has committed international crimes against the Palestinians and threatened peace and security in the region through aggression against other countries.
- De-radicalisation is imposed on Gaza only, while anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab sentiments, radicalisation and public incitement to genocide have been hallmarks of dominant rhetoric in Israel over the past two years.
- The plan largely treats Gaza in isolation from the West Bank including East Jerusalem, when these areas must be regarded as a unified Palestinian territory and State.
- An “economic development plan” and “special economic zone” could result in illegal foreign exploitation of resources without Palestinian consent.
- There is no duty on Israel and those who have sustained its illegal attacks in Gaza to compensate Palestinians for illegal war damage.
- The plan provides for the release of all Israeli hostages but only some of the many arbitrarily detained Palestinians.
- Amnesties offered to Hamas seem to be unconditional, even if they committed international crimes, denying justice for victims of international crimes. And the plan does not address accountability at all for Israeli international crimes and human rights violations against the Palestinian people. There is no commitment to transitional justice, historical truth-telling or genuine reconciliation. There is also no guaranteed access for independent journalists.
- Accountability and justice are integral to sustainable peace.
- The plan does not address other fundamental issues such as ending illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank including East Jerusalem, borders, compensation, and refugees.
- The plan does not provide a leading role for the United Nations, General Assembly or Security Council, or specifically for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which is vital to assisting and protecting Palestinians.
- Any peace plan must respect the ground rules of international law. The future of Palestine must be in the hands of the Palestinian people – not imposed by outsiders under extreme conditions of duress in yet another scheme to control their destiny.
- The International Court of Justice has been crystal clear: Conditions cannot be placed on the Palestinian right of self-determination. The Israeli occupation must end immediately, totally and unconditionally, with due reparation made to the Palestinians.
- Finally, the United Nations – not Israel or its closest ally – has been identified by the ICJ as the legitimate authority to oversee the end of the occupation and the transition towards a political solution in which the Palestinians’ right of self-determination is fully realised.
Which leaves us in no doubt. Trump is ignorant of international law (or he regards it as a huge inconvenience to his private agenda) and his plan has little to do with lasting peace. He must be persuaded to stand aside and leave all this to the UN. Imperfect though it is, the UN the best we’ve got.