Monday, June 22, 2020

Trump’s “Israel-Palestine Peace Deal”: Cheered by Israelis and Jeered by Palestinian Authority

This article is by

Share this article

Article Contributor(s)

Nikhita Gautam

Article Title

Trump’s “Israel-Palestine Peace Deal”: Cheered by Israelis and Jeered by Palestinian Authority

Publisher

Global Views 360

Publication Date

June 22, 2020

URL

President Trump Unveils a Plan for a Comprehensive Peace Agreement Between Israel and the Palestinians

President Trump Unveils a Plan for a Comprehensive Peace Agreement Between Israel and the Palestinians | Source White House via Wikimedia

In January 2020, President of the United States, Mr. Trump, elaborated on a plan that, according to him, would bring peace to the Middle East with respect to the ongoing Palestinian crisis. The plan was welcomed by Israel but rejected by the Palestinians as they perceive it to favour Israel at the cost of Palestinian interests. It gave Israel the right over Jerusalem and the settlements in the West Bank as well as Jordan Valley. The settlements in the West Bank came as a consequence of the 1967 Mideast war, in which Israel had captured it but never formally claimed it due to international opposition. 

According to the plan, the proposed Palestinian state would not have a standing military and would be required to live up to benchmarks set up by the Israelis. The new state of Palestine will be established on the land which is non-contiguous and Israel would retain the security responsibility of the West Bank. The new Palestine therefore will become unviable as a functioning state.  

The president of the Palestinian authority, Mahmood Abbas, denounced the plan immediately and called it a conspiracy deal which is unworthy of serious contemplation. “We say a thousand times over:”, he said ”no,no,no,” after which the Palestinian leadership has not been on speaking terms with the Trump administration. Mr. Abbas played no substantive role in the plan-making process.

In January, Israel was planning to vote on the unilateral annexation of the West Bank after their Knesset elections, which is the national legislature of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister who promised the annexation if he was elected, was re-elected in the March elections. "Today, I announce my intention, after the establishment of a new government, to apply Israeli sovereignty to the Jordan Valley and the northern Dead Sea," said Mr. Netanyahu in September as a part of his election campaign.

The annexation, in the opinion of the Prime Minister of Palestine, would destroy the progress made in the Oslo accords, which were agreements between the two states signed in 1993. On 20th of May, the Prime Minister vowed to annex parts of the occupied West Bank and that he’d act in July, to which the Palestinian authority dissolved all treaties, understandings and agreements with Israel and the United States, which include the Oslo accords.

In the beginning of June, the Palestinian Prime Minster announced that the state would declare independence for Palestine if Israel follows through on the threat. The announcement detailed that the authority would declare an independent state along the 1967 partitions with Jerusalem as its capital. The authority would also manifest as a state on the ground, which means there would be a founding council and a constitutional declaration. 

All eyes are now on the action of Israeli government and reaction of Palestinian Authority in this  long drawn saga.

Support us to bring the world closer

To keep our content accessible we don't charge anything from our readers and rely on donations to continue working. Your support is critical in keeping Global Views 360 independent and helps us to present a well-rounded world view on different international issues for you. Every contribution, however big or small, is valuable for us to keep on delivering in future as well.

Support Us

Share this article

Read More

February 4, 2021 4:40 PM

Black Lives Matter: Will it lead to reform of Police Forces in the USA?

The spontaneous eruption of the “Black Lives Matter” protest after the unfortunate death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has once again put the spotlight on the operational methodology of the police department at different cities around the USA. There is a chorus across the country, more so in the Democratic Party strongholds to do fundamental reorganization of the police force by focussing on community policing. Some of the extreme and radical activists have gone so far to demand “defund the police” and re-distribute its budget to marginalized communities, municipal corporations and necessity institutions.

“There is no magic switch to turn off and boom there’s no police department,” said Alex Vitale, a sociology professor at Brooklyn College. She released a book named ‘The End of Policing’. The book has become a manifesto for protests and police-reform advocates. The defund development calls for diminishing networks' dependence on police for various administrative problems like, observing the homeless, settling household quarrels, restraining understudies, reacting to upheavals by individuals with mental illness, paring down violence in neighbourhoods, and proportional reaction to minor inconveniences like somebody attempting to pass a fake $20, the allegation that set off the police call that resulted in Floyd's demise. The funds saved by reducing the workload of police could be utilised by social and community workers to resolve street feuds. “When we talk about de-funding the police, what we're saying is invest in the resources that our communities need,” Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza told NBC News.

There are cities which have approached this reform in a positive manner. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio has decided to shift the money from NYPD budget to youth recreational programs. A whopping $150 million is being pulled out of the LAPD by Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. This money is proposed to be invested in healthcare systems and build peace centres. Similarly Portland and Oregon have consented to pull police from state funded schools. A few Minneapolis organizations, including the government funded school region, the University of Minnesota and the Park and Recreation Board, have moved to diminish or end their agreements with city police.

Dallas has earlier experienced the positive results of diverting emergency mental health calls, not only on hospitals but also police to non-police establishment when in 2018 RIGHT Care  was provided $3 million funding to look after these issues. Since the program started, ambulances and emergency vehicle calls for individuals encountering emotional wellness inconveniences have declined in the south-local region of Dallas where the program works, which has opened up officials to manage different calls, authorities said. This transition was also done after the outcry over the shooting of a schizophrenic man holding a screwdriver in 2014 and subsequent defence of police personnel by the police boss David Brown.

Law enforcement officials and conservative activists believe that de-funding police would lead to an upsurge in criminal activities. President Donald Trump has started making this as a key plank of his re-election campaign while the Former Vice President Joe Biden, who is running against Trump, also came out against de-funding police.

It is therefore too early to predict whether the current phase of “Black Lives Movement” after the death of George Floyd will be successful in bringing some substantial reform in the working of police forces across the cities of the US or the momentum will be lost with some incremental tweaking here and there.  

Read More