In the 'Deal of the Century', a plan that has been worked on three years has finally been unveiled by Donald Trump. In it, he has provided a map, and key points have been made. Israel is to retain 20% of the West Bank, while Palestinians gain a pathway of sorts. Jerusalem will be shared as a capital, with Palestine gaining East Jerusalem, and the rest being Israel's capital. A Palestinian state has not officially been recognized, however, Israel is trusted to recognize it. No refugees will be allowed inside Israel, and only a few in Palestine. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas believes this to be 'The Slap of the Century'.
Discussion Questions:
- What would you change about the plan?
- How would you react if you were the PAP (Palestinian Authority President) or the PM of Israel?
- How will this change violence on the Israel-Palestine front?
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
For a long time, Israel and Palestine have had a a lot of conflict over different things: encroaching Jewish settlements, limited water resources, uncertain borders, barrier issues, and especially Jerusalem. Donald Trump's plan favors Israeli interests over Palestinian rights, bends international law, and ignores that Palestine wants to be identified as a state, so it is a no-brainer that Abbas reacted so negatively, and there will certainly be future conflict to come. The Israeli government will take Donald Trump's plan as an affirmation to maintain control over areas, which will not sit well with the Palestine Authority. Changing the plan would be a tricky matter. While the one-state solution is very popular, I think that is unfeasible and idealistic; neither government would want to form a merged government because their ideologies are too differing, and they want to maintain their own power. However, the two-state solution could work if Israel recognized Palestine as a separate state, and the two governments worked in joint on resources, security, and economic problems, while allowing free movement between each other with only citizens on either side voting in their own country's elections. They could make Jerusalem a joint-shared land, which neither state can declare as their capital, but rather a religious peace zone where blood should never be shed. In some ways, however, that idea is also just as criminally hopeful and overlooks the religious divide between the two states.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the plan isn't very specific in describing and dividing Palestinians and Israel. Pres. Trump's plan also seek not thought through and is just a general change that won't actually cause any beneficial changes. If I had to change the plan I would clearly define where Palestine and Israel is and would try and make both sides come to a compromise then seemingly just benefitting Israel.
ReplyDeleteI would give Palestine more things and rights over territories since this plan heavily favors the Israelis. It was made with just Trump and the Israel PM and there was no Palestinian negotiator involved with the talks. This immediately tells me that the talks were probably biased and won't favor the Palestinians. According to The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/30/trumps-plan-will-not-bring-peace-to-israel-and-palestine-what-will), the talks don't bring peace and in fact bring the opposite due to how much it favors the Israelis. If I was the PAP, I would react very harshly and condemn this plan as Abbas clearly did when declaring it a "the slap of the century."
ReplyDeleteBuilding on Sooki's idea, I feel as though giving the Palestinians control over East Jerusalem is only going to create more conflict because both Jews and Arabs have significant religious sites there including: the Temple Mount, Western Wall, Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the Dome of the Rock. By giving control of East Jerusalem solely to the Palestinians, there will most likely be more fighting about being able to access these holy sites. Therefore, I would change the control of Jerusalem so that it could maybe be shared between Israel and Palestine. They would each have control over their holy sites, but control of the city would have to have laws that would be agreed upon by both parties. Yes, this would be complicated, but I feel like it could be a way to end some of the conflict over Jerusalem. Also, both states need to recognize each other, otherwise there will never be peace. Mutual respect is the only way to end the conflict and if one country doesn't recognize the other, there will be no mutual respect.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Jerusalem
I think that any decision made about Israel and Palestine will lend itself to provoking a great deal of violence or uprising. As we've learned in class, the conflict between the two regions have grown to be extremely intense and dangerous, with even children harboring radical beliefs against their country's opponent (as depicted in Promises, a film from 2001). With the amount of violence already occurring (Hamas, etc), it is clear that any change in the situation will only result in more violence. However, drawing from our readings in class I personally found that the two-state solution proves more feasible than the establishment of one singular state. With President Trump's plan a change could ultimately result in less violence between the two regions. I also agree that the two regions must mutually acknowledge and respect each other in order for any solution to be found. To put it simply, both nations want peace and their own land. The citizens do no enjoy the violence, and have become afraid of the other side. Both Israel and Palestine must communicate well with each other in order to put an end to the conflict and establish peace in the region.
ReplyDeleteReplying to Question 3, I believe violence will stay the same or grow. Because Trump and Netanyahu worked together but didn't include any Palestinian reps, Palestinians will believe that they are not being treated equally and take to arms against the non-Arab countries, mainly America and Israel. In order to solve such a problem, all sides of the conflict need to feel respected, which the Palestinians are not receiving. Anyone can see how one sided the conflict is, as America and Israel are working together and excluding Palestine from the group.
ReplyDeleteI believe the countries will continue to have conflict since both sides want total control of Jerusalem, and don't want to make any compromises. Although Palestinians may be content with access to east Jerusalem, they will soon want more territory and continue to spread their "right to the land."
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThinking about the Palestinian prospective here, I think there is several problems with this plan. The fact that not only was Palestine completely left out of agreements on this deal, but to their point of view their people have been loosing land since the British mandate occurred, over wars throughout many years, Isreali instalments of communities and this deal now shrinks this space further. The consideration of the Palistinians is very little here, the point of a deal has been missed. Since Palistinians have been left out of this conversation, if this deal were to go through, I suspect there would be some substantial backlash by the Arab community. Especially since sources like the Washington post say that Palestine refused to even discuss the idea in talks when it became clear of the general agenda.
This issue has been around for a long time stemming from the creation of Israel. Both Israelis and Arabs have fought over control to land with no real solution in sight. Donald Trump is biased favoring the Israelis, therefore creating a harder and more complicated relationship with Palestine. The Palestinians have suffered and now are still not able to get a fair say in the issue. This issue will not be ending soon due to the hate between these people. The ability to peacefully negotiate will take time, but a path to peace must be written out carefully and thoughtfully.
ReplyDeleteI think this ¨peace¨ deal isnt really a good deal because it fail to actually create a solution that creates peace. Personally I cant say which side is right or if both are wrong but I think that the situation may havve gotten to a point where compromise will be ineffective. I belive that the US must pick one side and side with that one instead of having compromise. It may lead to a very bloody situatution but I think in the long term it will give peace
ReplyDeleteThis deal clearly favors Israel more than it does Palestine, which obviously led to backlash when this plan was supposed to be revolutionary. This is a touchy subject and it is very difficult to pinpoint who is "right" or "wrong". Personally, I believe that this plan will only lead to further conflict and that it will bring more harm than good if it would ever be put into effect. Luckily, I don't think it will.
ReplyDelete