- There are electoral motives for both Trump and Netanyahu
AT PENPOINT
As President Donald Trump unveiled his much touted Middle East peace plan, the first two things observers were that not only he, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also, faced a re-election. Netanyahu faced one earlier than Trump, and it would be the third in a series of inconclusive elections, two in 2019 failing to yield a government, and the third not expected to either. Trump, on the other hand, goes up for re-election in November.
Another commonality between the two is that both are fending off criminal proceedings. As Trump unveiled his plan, his lawyers were between hearings in which they were arguing before the US Senate against the case for his impeachment. Netanyahu was facing a corruption indictment, and was fending off arrest by virtue of his immunity as a member of the Knesset.
While Trump may not have needed to unveil the plan for his impeachment, he probably did need it for his re-election. Because of that need, the plan was flawed. The plan’s flaws virtually guaranteed its rejection by both the PLO and Hamas. The acceptance by Israel, represented by Netanyahu’s presence at the plan’s unveiling, of the plan was more likely, for it showed the Israeli electorate that the USA under Trump was still willing to deal with Netanyahu. Though not present, Trump had got Benny Gantz, the head of the Blue and White Party, and the only other aspirant to the post of Prime Minister, to agree to the proposal.
The new plan may have been widely rejected, but it does establish a new US position. It seems designed to get negotiations started again, but it merely regularises Israel’s territorial acquisitions in the 1967 War. That should make Pakistan wary of attempts to settle the Palestinian issue on the basis of the existing Line of Control, thus allowing India to retain the territory it acquired at Partition
The plan is more or less a status quo agreement. Trump said it was the ‘deal of the century’. He had to unveil the plan for two major reasons. First, it was something he had promised in his 2016 campaign. He has to show that he has done something to solve the Palestinian problem. Second, it was also necessary to show that his son-in-law Jared Kushner, himself a Jew, had not frittered away the entire term. Kushner, who had an official position both on the Trump campaign, and in the White House after he was elected, had a mandate to find a solution to the Palestinian issue. Apart from a number of visits, he also had the assistance of Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman and UAE Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed. That would explain why the UAE initially favoured the plan, as did Egypt, which in 1977 had made peace with Israel. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Egypt now stand bound by the Arab League’s rejection of the plan.
The plan creates the basis for negotiations towards a two-state solution. The Palestinian state contemplated by the plan would contain a large number of enclaves, with Israeli settlements, set up in defiance of the Oslo Accords, which allowed the establishment of a Palestinian Authority on the West Bank and Gaza, and where the Israeli military regularly unleashes its vast superiority in equipment.
One of the key issues which the plan purports to solve is that it awards East Jerusalem to Israel. East Jerusalem was occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War, and Israel has long claimed that its capital was supposed to be Jerusalem, with Tel Aviv merely a temporary capital. Palestinians, on the other hand, hoped that East Jerusalem would be their capital. Last year, Trump had finally come good on something that had been part of the manifesto promises of both parties since 1976: that the US Embassy would be shifted to Jerusalem.
The OIC has also rejected the plan, though it has not done so in a Summit so far. The OIC, it should not be forgotten, had come into existence because of the Palestinian cause, more specifically the fire in the Masjid Al-Aqsa. The annexation of East Jerusalem should be seen as a step towards the restoration of the Temple of Solomon, which was sited where the Masjid Al-Aqsa stands. Though the peace plan says that the Masjid Al-Aqsa will remain under the administration of the Jordanian authorities, as at present, Zionists want the Temple restored. Al-Aqsa is of great importance to Muslims too, because it is also a Haram, along with the Kaaba in Makkah and Masjid-i-Nabvi in Madinah. It has special significance as the Qibla-i-Awwal, towards which the Holy Prophet (PBUH) prayed, enjoining his followers to do so, until ordered by the Almighty to turn instead towards Makkah. Jerusalem has the added significance of being the only Byzantine city surrendered to the Caliph personally, and one view being that any renegotiation of the state possessing it is a violation of the Sharia. At the same time, it has been the seat of a Patriarch, at present Greek Orthodox. The last time it passed out of Muslim hands was when the First Crusade captured it in 1098.
Pakistan has to be careful. So far, it has succeeded about taking part in intra-Arab issues. But now that the previous Arab consensus may be breaking down, it may have to re-visit first principles. It should not be forgotten that Pakistan’s interest in the Palestine issue is not only because it is a Muslim issue, but because there are parallels with the Kashmir cause. Just as India’s occupation of Kashmir does not allow the Kashmiri people to exercise their right of self-determination, so is the Zionist occupation of Palestine, and the existence of the Zionist entity of Israel, stopping the Palestinian people.
The US peace plan may show the Modi government that changing ground realities, as has been done in Indian-Occupied Kashmir since August 5, does pay dividends. Kashmiris especially, but other Muslims in India, should realise that the fate ahead of them is no different from that of Palestinians, who are either under occupation or in refugee camps. The camps already hold Muslims in Assam. The rest of India will follow.
Hindu chauvinists have been learning from Zionists now for decades. It is interesting that the Zionists get support from the religious right; Evangelicals in the USA, and the Sangh Parivar in India. In fact, Zionists are not particularly religious, with the original movement not only secular and socialist, but strongly condemned by some Hassidic leaders. The only hold-out is Muslim religious groups, with the result that Christians, Hindus and Jews are combined against Muslims.
At this moment, though Prime Minister Imran Khan has apparently papered over differences with Malaysia by making a bilateral visit and apologising for not attending the Kuala Lumpur Summit (after dropping out at Saudi insistence), the Muslim world is facing a split which makes it singularly ill-equipped to face off the new plan. It should be remembered that the Muslim World did virtually nothing when the PLO and Egypt recognised Israel after the Camp David, and then the Oslo Accords.
The new plan may have been widely rejected, but it does establish a new US position. It seems designed to get negotiations started again, but it merely regularises Israel’s territorial acquisitions in the 1967 War. That should make Pakistan wary of attempts to settle the Palestinian issue on the basis of the existing Line of Control, thus allowing India to retain the territory it acquired at Partition. As in 1947-48, Pakistan finds that Palestinian freedom is vital to the Kashmir cause.
