By Batool Subeiti

Trump-Netanyahu deal: lose-lose situation

February 6, 2020 - 17:51

LONDON - The Liberation movements of the Middle East are changing the face of the world. The reality of the ‘Deal of the Century’ plan, the culmination of what Trump stated was “a long and very arduous 3-year process,” is that America and Israel want it actualised against all the odds of it succeeding.

It is worth noting that the $50 billion of bribery money within the deal, which will supposedly revitalise and “fundamentally transform the West Bank and Gaza”, is a sum that will apparently be donated by the Gulf, in return for the Palestinian nation to accept forgoing all of Jerusalem immediately and under the condition the Palestinian resistance groups give up all arms as a means of its defence and protection. To the Arab nations that are facilitating this deal and effectively selling Palestine to Israel for some cheap bucks, the message is clear: if you do not want to positively contribute towards the Palestinian’s right to live liberated from occupation, then at least do not facilitate the Zionist settler-colonial objective.

The least other nations can do that have been in support of the two-state solution is to rise up and reject this deal. Indeed, such a deal can never and will never come into fruition, whether through peace or war. That is because nobody except Israel’s key allies has given it recognition, whilst on the other hand, Israel does not have the capacity nor strength to enter into a war with the Liberation fronts on the ground, that are only increasing in strength day after day. What exactly makes the so called ‘Deal of the Century’ different to all other deals in the past, supposedly enacted to achieve a ‘peaceful’ solution to the ‘Israeli-Palestine’ conflict? Before we explore this question, it is worth understanding what Israel’s main objective to entering ‘peace negotiations’ is to begin with. Israel’s main threat since its creation in 1948 is to be denied legitimacy for its existence from the wider surroundings, even if the surrounding states and populations are weak and are not able to directly confront Israel’s aggression- that is beside the point. This is because Israel can never truly feel secure whilst they are not receiving recognition.

If we take a brief look at history, we see that during the six-day war in 1967, Israel illegally annexed the West Bank and the Golan Heights, whilst the 1973 Arab-Israeli war ended in a way that was benefitting to Israel.

Through the Camp David Accords that followed in 1978, Israel started to feel they were achieving their goals, through receiving recognition and legitimacy from neighbouring countries, namely Egypt under Anwar Sadat. The so called ‘peace agreements’ that followed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, from the Madrid Conference to the Oslo Accord’s, they were all pursued for one purpose and only – that is for Israel to normalise relations with neighbouring countries, including the Palestinian Authorities, as seen with Yasser Arafat’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist in the Oslo Accords. The reality is that it makes no difference to Israel whether there is an agreement in place or not, whether one side or two sides are present: Israel will do whatever it feels the need to do- and in the case of the previous ‘peace’ agreements, Israel partook in them all precisely to establish their legitimacy that they have very much sought after. Despite the fact the previous agreements were ‘mutual’ between the parties, Israel did not comply with the rights they said the other parties were entitled to and left them hanging on false and empty promises, and that is due to the nature of Israel, that has no regards for human rights and considers itself above basic international laws. To further illustrate this point, Israel’s pulling out of Gaza in 2005 was unilateral and without the consent of the Palestinian’s- this certainly wasn’t due to Israel’s regard for international law; the proof for this is that Gaza is still under Israeli siege and is currently described by the UN as the ‘world’s largest open-air prison’. Dismantling Israeli settlements in Gaza was to serve Israel’s own interests, given Gaza has a very large population density and they were threatened by the resistance groups that were present there. On the same note, Israel’s pulling out of South Lebanon in 2000 occurred without any prior agreement with the Lebanese authorities. Again, that is because it wasn't in Israel’s interest for them to remain in Lebanon- the price they were paying for their occupation of South Lebanon was too high, most certainly as a result of the strength the resistance group gained in Lebanon that made it impossible for Israel to achieve the gains it sought to begin with- to the extent that Israel now thinks twice before it decides to put itself in a direct confrontation with Lebanon. To conclude here, Israel does what it sees to be in its interests, irrespective of whether there is an agreement or not and irrespective of international law.

Now when we look at the so called ‘Deal of the Century’, which outlines the annexation of the Jordan Valley, in addition to the annexation of 20% of the West Bank via 15 illegal Israeli settlements within Palestinian territory and maintaining Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital?effectively legitimising themselves over the whole land and debunking the two-state solution 'promise', it is clear the deal is one sided, in contrast to all the previous deals and goes fundamentally against international norms. That is because the other side meant nothing to Israel and its allies to begin with and America, alongside Israel are now showing their true colours. The reality of the situation is that Israel has only been able to achieve its goals- not due to their strength- but due to the weakness of their surroundings. They have reached such a level of impunity in violating human rights because they are sure there is no accountability or counteracting action from the surroundings towards them.

Exploring this deal a little further, what is the danger of its implementation? With over 2.5 million Palestinian’s living in the West Bank, an extremely densely populated region, Israel is not only seizing the best land and resources through annexing the territories and giving themselves false authority over the land, they are striving to create an unbearable condition for the Palestinian’s living within, such that they become hopeless and would want to immigrate and abandon their own homeland themselves. It is important to denote the role of the Liberation axis in counteracting this deal: the reality of the situation is that the Liberation fronts in the region have been mobilising for decades before this deal was first negotiated 3 years ago in the White House. Indeed, according to the axis of Liberation, the deal is already expired before its actualisation- it is too late and cannot achieve anything because the situation on the ground is going in another direction. The state of Israel is defending itself with a deal that isn’t under the right conditions for survival- that is because the Liberation groups are only expanding and gaining more power day by day, as they are focused on developing their potentialities and abilities to deter any aggression. Since the Syrian Civil war there has been a new era for the Liberation fronts in the Middle Eastern region, that have become united in their struggle and all parties regard an attack on one as an attack on them all. Most certainly, the Liberation Fronts will not remain silent on the annexing of the Jordan Valley and the West Bank, whilst its strength will only serve to diffuse every point on the 'deal'. On that note, it is important to understand the role of the Liberation groups in the region with respect to Israel’s sense of stability and security. Prior to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s establishment in 1979, every single nation in the region would comply with Western demands- without even questioning, however, Iran’s independence in 1979 from the shackles of Western Imperialism proved to the West and Israel that they now have to take other calculated measures, as a new power in the region has come along and has a say in the region affairs, driving it in a direction that is going against the Western interests of the region.

Indeed, the biggest worry for Israel since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran and it's support of the Liberation groups in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere has been their collective determination and seriousness in fighting back Israeli occupation, even if the resistance hasn’t managed to pose a direct threat on Israel’s settler-colonial expansion and annexation in the heart of Palestine, which has only been increasing year upon year. It is the spirit of recognizing Israel for what it is and not giving it a legitimacy that threatens Israel more than anything, even if that is on the level of a Palestinian peacefully protesting in their homeland. The reality is that Israel is in a big conflict where it desires to capture what it wants by force, whilst the balance of powers on the ground is shifting to a level where Israel will not be able to gain what it wants. The increasing power of the Liberation front will not allow the state of Israel to live in security and satisfaction and indeed, the Liberation movement is striving to make the cost for the Western powers sustaining Israel so high that even America, its greatest ally would feel Israel is a huge burden on it. Indeed, Israel was created in order to serve as an extension of the West in the region, and Israel is only surviving due to Western support, therefore when the state of Israel goes from securing the interests of the West to a place where the West is paying more than it is receiving through the existence of Israel, it will forego sustaining Israel itself. This can also be seen in the light of America’s presence in the Middle East that is unstable, as the imperialist power is only diminishing with no concrete base to remain. Would Israel feel safe if its biggest ally, America was removed from the region? Indeed, the resistance is creating an unbearable condition for Israel to survive, and it has reached the point where Israel’s legitimacy is being rejected from the masses on the international scene. The ‘Deal of the Century’ is most certainly a lose-lose situation, given it cannot be enacted, whether through peaceful means or by war. The world is increasing in recognition of Israel and the West’s hypocrisy, as they are unveiling their true colors for themselves, whilst the Liberation fronts are only going from strength to strength.


The writer is a UK-based student and activist.

Leave a Comment

7 + 5 =