Trump and Netanyahu: The ‘Deal of the Century’ in shambles

The Liberation movements within 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 states, 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 are not standing up for the Palestinian’s basic human rights to live liberated from occupation, then at least do not facilitate the Zionist settler-colonial objective. The least other nations can do, particularly those that have been ardent supporters of the two-state solution is to rise up and categorically reject this deal, whilst calling for the sanctioning of the state of Israel if it is to be implemented.. 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. 

Before getting into the depths of this article, it is worth noting that the timing of bringing this deal forward, whereby Trump is facing an impeachment trial and Netanyahu is facing corruption charges, is but a small factor in consideration of the broader scheme of things.    

Israel’s history with international agreements  

The first question worth exploring is 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’ has been throughout the decades.

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 – and this is besides the point. That is because how can the settler-colonial state 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 benefiting 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. Israel agreed to pursue the so-called ‘peace agreements’ that followed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, from the Madrid Conference to the Oslo Accord’s for one crucial purpose – that is for Israel to normalise relations with neighbouring countries, in addition to Palestine itself that it was subjugating under its illegal occupation,, as seen with Yasser Arafat’s recognition of Israel’s right to exist in the Oslo Accords. 

The reality is that the state of Israel will do whatever it feels is conducive to its interests and needs, whether there is an agreement in place with the other side or not, whether one side or two sides are present. In addition to this, 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- it 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 was not 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 by occupying Lebanon to begin with- to the extent that Israel would now consider a thousand measures 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 with the parties involved or not and irrespective of international law.

The Deal of the Century

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, as explained above, the other side meant nothing to Israel and its allies to begin with and they are now simply showing their true colours. The reality of the situation is that Israel has 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 unbearable conditions 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 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, with all parties regarding 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 of the ‘deal’.

The strength of liberation groups

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, the nations of 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 to 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 the support it has given to the Liberation groups in Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere is their determination and seriousness in fighting back Israeli occupation, even if the axis of 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 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 the Western powers sustaining Israel so high that even America, its greatest ally, would feel that Israel is a huge burden. 

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 goes from securing the interests of the West to a place where the West are having to paying more to sustain it than it is receiving, 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 colours for themselves, whilst the Liberation fronts are only going from strength to strength.