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 4:48 PM

Bias and Nostalgia in Hergé’s Tintin

Some of my fondest memories involve sitting under the guava or the European gumtree, perched on the wall of our garden as the sunlight dappled on an old copy of a Tintin comic. For some years, at least, before the gumtree was cut down, the leaves bore witness to me following the globe-trotting adventures of the Belgian reporter, replete with hilariously-named companions and witty play of words. My nostalgia is as much for the inked characters and words on the paper, as for the musty smell of the oft-thumbed and yellowed pages of the comic, and the permanently romanticized view of the sunny garden. The comics have left a palpable imprint on my sense of humour and love of a certain kind of literature. And perhaps it is this imprint, along with my pleasant nostalgia, that makes it a struggling task to accept Hergé’s racism through his Tintin comics.

Hergé’s (or Georges Prosper Remi’s) writings were, undeniably, a product of their times. His first two series in the Adventures of Tintin comics, Tintin in the land of the Soviets (1929) and Tintin in Congo (1931), have famously been the subject of much debate, since the late 1900s. In Soviets, Hergé offers a crude critique against Marxism – meant to inculcate anti- Soviet sentiments in the European youth at the time, by portraying the Bolsheviks as inherently evil without a full comprehension of how they rose to power or what their political views were.

In Congo, African tribes and leaders are portrayed as either infantile, or in need of saving, to the extent that Tintin becomes the embodiment of fairness for young Africans, even having a temple made after him. Congo itself was a colony of Belgium from 1908 to 1960, one of the two colonies that Belgium governed, and the comics grossly ignore the labour politics of the Congolese and their efforts in both the World Wars. It was not until after the decolonisation of Africa that European perception of ex-African colonies changed.

Much of the modern debate surrounding the banning of select Tintin comics is centred around the depicitons of big-game hunting in Congo and the anti-Semitism in the The Shooting Star. Besides the uncomfortable portrayals of the Congolese, a few panels in the 1931 edition of Congo depicted Tintin drilling a hole into a live Rhinoceros, filled with dynamite, and blown up. In the 1946 edition, this scene was replaced, with Herge apologizing for what he recognized as “youthful transgressions''. In the Shooting Star, the villainous financer was renamed, from the Jewish Blumstein to the innocuous Bohlwinkel.

Hergé’s subsequent works became politically neutral, written after the German occupation of Belgium and the German takeover of Le Vingtième Siècle, the conservative Catholic newspaper he wrote for. While the white-saviour narrative continued with Tintin leading as the embodiment of Europe that “natives” had to follow, the later works are much less politically biased.

However, he prefaced Tintin in America with a critique against the racism in the United States, alongside his anti-imperial stance in The Blue Lotus. He is also known, famously, for not joining with the far-right extremist forces in German-occupied Belgium at the time, as many of his colleagues had. Michael Farr, a British expert on The Adventures of Tintin series, claimed after a meeting with Hergé that “you couldn’t meet someone more open and less racist”. Others have called him an opportunist, heaving towards the side that was popular. Perhaps this was indeed the case, or equally, perhaps Hergé did change his views, and his writings in Soviet and Congo are merely reflective of the predominant Belgian culture at the time.

At any rate, the question still remains: how do we read, or re-read, Hergé (or many such childhood-favourite authors, like Dr. Seuss)? Shelving the books and forgetting the authors is undoubtedly impossible, and misguided besides. A recognition of the biases, and a plethora of context surrounding these texts must be made available at all times. A celebration of a character or a person must not come at the cost of ignoring their uncomfortable stances.

The depiction of Africa in 20th century comics has been abysmal. A tendency of depicting the 'other' as a 'noble-savage' is a familiar concern to those readers who have spent much of their lives in recently liberated colonies. It is, perhaps, especially imperative for such readers to keep this in mind and not repeat them.

In our Consumerist times, it seems, we sometimes forget to start dialogues on themes that are unfamiliar and maybe even uncomfortable to us. We forget which stories desperately need to be told and which have not seen the light of day under the shadow of popular literature.

This, at least, is what I have strived to do: to maintain a balance between nostalgia and a recognition of biases. My memory of the Tintin comics will remain just as romantic as the idyllic memory I started with in the beginning of this article.

Read More