12 june 2019
By Ramona Wadi
The dangerous farce of finding a purported solution for Palestine continues. To detract from issues such as the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians and the Palestinian right of return, a new twist has been added to the Bahrain summit – pitting Palestinian business leaders against the Palestinian people, who have been rendered politically invisible.
In an interview with the New York Times, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman justified the summit by mentioning the aspirations of Palestinian business people. “There is almost no Palestinian business leader that wants to refrain from meeting with some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, when the topic of the discussion is limited to giving money to the Palestinians,” he declared.
A “silent majority of Palestinians”, he said would embrace the so-called deal of the century, were it not for the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to engage with the Trump administration.
That Palestinian business leaders would wish to attend the summit should not elicit surprise, or provide justification for disapproving the boycotts against Israeli-US incentives. That said, it has also been reported that, contrary to Friedman’s claims, Palestinian business organisations refused the US invitation due to the absence of a political solution. Economic peace, they said, has not been successful “precisely because freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians was lacking.”
The aim of the conference is to unite investors against Palestinians. If Palestinians participate, the summit would achieve a milestone in consolidating the divide between social classes in Palestinian society.
Moreover, it would boost the US plans to completely eliminate Palestinian political demands by promoting and requesting adherence to a business model that will provide economic incentives for a select group of investors, while forcing the rest of the Palestinian population into circumstances necessitating even more humanitarian aid.
The outcome would be the US and the international community finding a viable model of cooperation to exploit Palestinians. All the rhetoric of opposing US President Donald Trump’s plan would no longer take precedence. Instead, the international community would have an easier time to market Palestine and Palestinians as a perpetual humanitarian project. And evoking the deal of the century or the two-state compromise will no longer be considered a contentious issue within diplomatic circles.
Trump’s plan illustrated the perpetual actions of scheming against Palestinian demands. The international community’s refusal to go back in decades, before humanitarian aid and Israel came into existence with disastrous consequences for Palestinians, are among the main reasons why a solution has not yet been found. Human rights are not profitable for the international community, but violations are.
These violations include depriving Palestinians of their legitimate right to return to all of their land – something which the US, the UN and the PA are in agreement about. Indeed the success of Trump’s plan, irrespective of whether it is implemented, lies in the fact that it is uniting the world against Palestinian demands, obliterating Palestinian history and isolating the Palestinian people against the growing trend of investment for the elite across the political spectrum.
- Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger. Her writing covers a range of themes in relation to Palestine, Chile and Latin America. Her article appeared in MEMO.
The dangerous farce of finding a purported solution for Palestine continues. To detract from issues such as the ongoing forced displacement of Palestinians and the Palestinian right of return, a new twist has been added to the Bahrain summit – pitting Palestinian business leaders against the Palestinian people, who have been rendered politically invisible.
In an interview with the New York Times, US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman justified the summit by mentioning the aspirations of Palestinian business people. “There is almost no Palestinian business leader that wants to refrain from meeting with some of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, when the topic of the discussion is limited to giving money to the Palestinians,” he declared.
A “silent majority of Palestinians”, he said would embrace the so-called deal of the century, were it not for the Palestinian Authority’s refusal to engage with the Trump administration.
That Palestinian business leaders would wish to attend the summit should not elicit surprise, or provide justification for disapproving the boycotts against Israeli-US incentives. That said, it has also been reported that, contrary to Friedman’s claims, Palestinian business organisations refused the US invitation due to the absence of a political solution. Economic peace, they said, has not been successful “precisely because freedom and sovereignty for Palestinians was lacking.”
The aim of the conference is to unite investors against Palestinians. If Palestinians participate, the summit would achieve a milestone in consolidating the divide between social classes in Palestinian society.
Moreover, it would boost the US plans to completely eliminate Palestinian political demands by promoting and requesting adherence to a business model that will provide economic incentives for a select group of investors, while forcing the rest of the Palestinian population into circumstances necessitating even more humanitarian aid.
The outcome would be the US and the international community finding a viable model of cooperation to exploit Palestinians. All the rhetoric of opposing US President Donald Trump’s plan would no longer take precedence. Instead, the international community would have an easier time to market Palestine and Palestinians as a perpetual humanitarian project. And evoking the deal of the century or the two-state compromise will no longer be considered a contentious issue within diplomatic circles.
Trump’s plan illustrated the perpetual actions of scheming against Palestinian demands. The international community’s refusal to go back in decades, before humanitarian aid and Israel came into existence with disastrous consequences for Palestinians, are among the main reasons why a solution has not yet been found. Human rights are not profitable for the international community, but violations are.
These violations include depriving Palestinians of their legitimate right to return to all of their land – something which the US, the UN and the PA are in agreement about. Indeed the success of Trump’s plan, irrespective of whether it is implemented, lies in the fact that it is uniting the world against Palestinian demands, obliterating Palestinian history and isolating the Palestinian people against the growing trend of investment for the elite across the political spectrum.
- Ramona Wadi is an independent researcher, freelance journalist, book reviewer and blogger. Her writing covers a range of themes in relation to Palestine, Chile and Latin America. Her article appeared in MEMO.
A handout picture released by the Jordanian Royal Palace on March 24, 2019 shows Jordan’s King Abdullah II (L) meeting with Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Cairo
The Palestinian Authority (PA) says it “deeply regrets” decisions by Jordan and Egypt to attend an upcoming US-led conference in Bahrain, which revolves around a controversial Washington-devised plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Authority “calls on them and all brotherly and friendly countries to withdraw,” the PA’s spokesman Ibrahim Melhim said Tuesday.
“Under the cover of this participation, the US is trying to create solutions outside the realm of international legitimacy that detracts from the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people,” he added.
The comments came after Egypt, Jordan and Morocco reportedly informed Washington of their plans to send representatives to the June 25-26 conference, which seeks to unveil the economic aspects of a scheme forged by the US to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Washington has withheld details about its “deal of the century,” but various leaks have revealed that it seriously compromises Palestinians’ rights and grievances.
The Times of Israel said the Arab trio’s decision now “paves the way for Israel to be invited as well.”
According to a report cited by the paper, US officials wanted to secure enough Arab participation, particularly that of Egypt and Jordan, before bringing Israel into the picture.
Palestinians have accused regional Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — which have similarly announced plans to participate at the conference — of betraying the Palestinian cause of ending Israel’s occupation.
All Palestinian factions, whether in the Gaza Strip or the occupied West Bank, have unanimously boycotted the conference.
Meanwhile, Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior official with the Fatah Party — which dominates the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization umbrella group — said the outcome of the Manama event will have “no legal value” as long as “the stakeholders oppose” it.
“How can the workshop take place in a brotherly Arab country in the absence of the main stakeholder of the [Palestinian] issue…? The mere holding of [the conference] is in contravention of the Arab Peace Initiative that affirmed the two-state solution, ending the occupation, establishing an independent Palestinian state and the return of refugees in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” he said.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) says it “deeply regrets” decisions by Jordan and Egypt to attend an upcoming US-led conference in Bahrain, which revolves around a controversial Washington-devised plan on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Authority “calls on them and all brotherly and friendly countries to withdraw,” the PA’s spokesman Ibrahim Melhim said Tuesday.
“Under the cover of this participation, the US is trying to create solutions outside the realm of international legitimacy that detracts from the legitimate national rights of the Palestinian people,” he added.
The comments came after Egypt, Jordan and Morocco reportedly informed Washington of their plans to send representatives to the June 25-26 conference, which seeks to unveil the economic aspects of a scheme forged by the US to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Washington has withheld details about its “deal of the century,” but various leaks have revealed that it seriously compromises Palestinians’ rights and grievances.
The Times of Israel said the Arab trio’s decision now “paves the way for Israel to be invited as well.”
According to a report cited by the paper, US officials wanted to secure enough Arab participation, particularly that of Egypt and Jordan, before bringing Israel into the picture.
Palestinians have accused regional Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — which have similarly announced plans to participate at the conference — of betraying the Palestinian cause of ending Israel’s occupation.
All Palestinian factions, whether in the Gaza Strip or the occupied West Bank, have unanimously boycotted the conference.
Meanwhile, Azzam al-Ahmad, a senior official with the Fatah Party — which dominates the PA and the Palestine Liberation Organization umbrella group — said the outcome of the Manama event will have “no legal value” as long as “the stakeholders oppose” it.
“How can the workshop take place in a brotherly Arab country in the absence of the main stakeholder of the [Palestinian] issue…? The mere holding of [the conference] is in contravention of the Arab Peace Initiative that affirmed the two-state solution, ending the occupation, establishing an independent Palestinian state and the return of refugees in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194,” he said.
11 june 2019
Lebanese Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil says his country is boycotting the forthcoming US-led conference in Bahrain in support of President Donald Trump’s controversial proposal for “peace” between the Israeli regime and Palestinians, dubbed “the deal of the century,” because Palestinians are not taking part in the event.
“We will not participate in the Bahrain conference [scheduled for June 25-26] because the Palestinians are not participating and we prefer to have a clear idea about the proposed plan for peace. We were not consulted regarding [the plan],” Bassil said on Tuesday.
The statement came after an unnamed senior White House official said Jordan, Egypt and Morocco had informed the administration they would send representatives to Manama.
The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia announced in May that they would participate in the conference.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Hamas resistance movement have called for an Arab boycott of the Bahrain confab.
Hamas, in a statement issued on May 20, also called on Arab countries to provide the Palestinian people with every support to confront and frustrate the US “deal of the century.”
“We are following with great concern the American announcement about holding an economic workshop next June in the Bahraini capital of Manama,” Hamas said, describing it as the first American confab in support of the so-called deal of the century.
The movement also denounced any Arab participation in adopting and executing the deal, saying any attendance in the American-led Bahrain conference would be considered a deviation from Arab and Islamic values.
Trump’s “peace plan” has already been dismissed by Palestinian authorities ahead of its unveiling at the end of the holy fasting month of Ramadan and the formation of the new Israeli cabinet, most likely in June.
Speaking in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah on April 16, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh lashed out at the initiative, asserting it was “born dead.”
Shtayyeh noted that negotiations with the US were useless in the wake of the country’s relocation of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem al-Quds, which Palestinians consider the capital city of their future state.
“We will not participate in the Bahrain conference [scheduled for June 25-26] because the Palestinians are not participating and we prefer to have a clear idea about the proposed plan for peace. We were not consulted regarding [the plan],” Bassil said on Tuesday.
The statement came after an unnamed senior White House official said Jordan, Egypt and Morocco had informed the administration they would send representatives to Manama.
The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia announced in May that they would participate in the conference.
The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Hamas resistance movement have called for an Arab boycott of the Bahrain confab.
Hamas, in a statement issued on May 20, also called on Arab countries to provide the Palestinian people with every support to confront and frustrate the US “deal of the century.”
“We are following with great concern the American announcement about holding an economic workshop next June in the Bahraini capital of Manama,” Hamas said, describing it as the first American confab in support of the so-called deal of the century.
The movement also denounced any Arab participation in adopting and executing the deal, saying any attendance in the American-led Bahrain conference would be considered a deviation from Arab and Islamic values.
Trump’s “peace plan” has already been dismissed by Palestinian authorities ahead of its unveiling at the end of the holy fasting month of Ramadan and the formation of the new Israeli cabinet, most likely in June.
Speaking in the occupied West Bank city of Ramallah on April 16, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh lashed out at the initiative, asserting it was “born dead.”
Shtayyeh noted that negotiations with the US were useless in the wake of the country’s relocation of its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem al-Quds, which Palestinians consider the capital city of their future state.
David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, looks into Syria from the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. He has his eyes set on the occupied West Bank next
David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, has asserted that Israel has the right to annex West Bank land.
“Under certain circumstances,” Friedman told The New York Times, “I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”
He put it differently in his 2017 Senate confirmation hearing when he declared he did not personally support Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
At the time, Senator Bob Corker, the committee’s chair, called Friedman out for changing positions leading the nominee to “recant every strongly held belief that you’ve expressed, almost.”
Yet it should come as no surprise to the US Senate that Friedman was not honest with them after years of fundraising to advance the Israeli settlement enterprise.
Friedman’s comment comes two months after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced just prior to the April Israeli election that he intended to annex parts of the West Bank.
Flawed Democratic responseSenate Democrats, unnerved at the impending Netanyahu and Trump-led foreclosing on the two-state solution, have pushed forward a resolution this month “noting that Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank would undermine peace.”
Co-sponsors include presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The resolution, however, is deeply flawed. Democrats are rightly expressing alarm at the prospect of annexation, but they embrace Israeli propaganda in noting that annexation would undermine “Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Such language is overtly racist and echoes the commonly expressed view in Israel that Palestinians, if given full rights, would constitute a “demographic threat” to Israel merely for being born and existing.
Indeed, Warren warned in February that “realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths.”
If Warren uttered the same words about, say, Latinos, in the US context, she would be rightly lambasted for Trump-like nativism and white supremacism.
Yet Warren, like other liberals, views segregating Palestinians and Israelis into separate entities – a “two-state solution” in which Israel would inevitably maintain all the real power – as the best way to solve what she sees as the problem of there being too many Palestinians.
The insistence on maintaining a Jewish majority – and therefore Israeli Jewish political power – at the expense of Palestinian rights is no different in principle than if Democrats, or Republicans, supported a white and Christian “democratic” United States of America.
Yet most 21st century Democrats would see such a “white and Christian democracy” as a farce, antithetical to bedrock Democratic principles.
But when it comes to Israel they fail to grasp the import of their own words and how a “Jewish and democratic state” is totally incompatible with the rights of Palestinians.
A similar resolution introduced in the House claims that “the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including opposing settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory.”
Setting aside Democratic mythmaking that the US has seriously sought an end to the occupation and justice for Palestinians – when it has long helped finance the occupation and armed Israel during horrific military attacks on Palestinian civilians, while denying Palestinian refugees’ right of return – the House resolution has similar problems to the one in the Senate.
Representative Alan Lowenthal’s resolution, with its 122 Democratic co-sponsors, resolves to “ensure the State of Israel’s survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state.”
There is nothing there about a state for all its people.
Israel has effectively imposed an undemocratic one-state solution – in other words apartheid – and is on the path to formalizing it.
But members of Congress are still insisting on a two-state solution – without calling for any effective measures to hold Israel accountable for blocking it – rather than demanding that everyone living in the territories currently under Israeli rule be granted full and equal rights.
They are late to understand what is happening, indeed, they still do not even understand Netanyahu, President Donald Trump and Friedman are changing the fundamental realities on the ground toward entrenching the system of apartheid Israel has spent decades creating without anything more than verbal opposition from the United States and the so-called international community.
Partial annexation would leave Palestinians in their truncated and disconnected bantustans, but would kill the pretense that Israel ever intends to leave the West Bank. And it may well prove to be only another step towards a future Israeli goal: full annexation of all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Yet even partial annexation may leave Democrats slumbering and oblivious that Israel is hewing closely to South Africa’s bantustan model. In fact, members of Congress and some in the international community may be more likely to accept partial annexation because it would permit Palestinian municipal government over remaining Palestinian cantons.
Only one sitting member of Congress, Minnesota’s Betty McCollum, has had the courage to name the system Israel has created as apartheid. Her name is on the House resolution as well.
Trump and Netanyahu’s trial run with the Golan Heights certainly gives no reason to think that Democrats will rise to the occasion when it comes to similar moves against the West Bank.
David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, has asserted that Israel has the right to annex West Bank land.
“Under certain circumstances,” Friedman told The New York Times, “I think Israel has the right to retain some, but unlikely all, of the West Bank.”
He put it differently in his 2017 Senate confirmation hearing when he declared he did not personally support Israeli annexation of the West Bank.
At the time, Senator Bob Corker, the committee’s chair, called Friedman out for changing positions leading the nominee to “recant every strongly held belief that you’ve expressed, almost.”
Yet it should come as no surprise to the US Senate that Friedman was not honest with them after years of fundraising to advance the Israeli settlement enterprise.
Friedman’s comment comes two months after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced just prior to the April Israeli election that he intended to annex parts of the West Bank.
Flawed Democratic responseSenate Democrats, unnerved at the impending Netanyahu and Trump-led foreclosing on the two-state solution, have pushed forward a resolution this month “noting that Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank would undermine peace.”
Co-sponsors include presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
The resolution, however, is deeply flawed. Democrats are rightly expressing alarm at the prospect of annexation, but they embrace Israeli propaganda in noting that annexation would undermine “Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Such language is overtly racist and echoes the commonly expressed view in Israel that Palestinians, if given full rights, would constitute a “demographic threat” to Israel merely for being born and existing.
Indeed, Warren warned in February that “realities are bearing down on Israel, demographic realities, births and deaths.”
If Warren uttered the same words about, say, Latinos, in the US context, she would be rightly lambasted for Trump-like nativism and white supremacism.
Yet Warren, like other liberals, views segregating Palestinians and Israelis into separate entities – a “two-state solution” in which Israel would inevitably maintain all the real power – as the best way to solve what she sees as the problem of there being too many Palestinians.
The insistence on maintaining a Jewish majority – and therefore Israeli Jewish political power – at the expense of Palestinian rights is no different in principle than if Democrats, or Republicans, supported a white and Christian “democratic” United States of America.
Yet most 21st century Democrats would see such a “white and Christian democracy” as a farce, antithetical to bedrock Democratic principles.
But when it comes to Israel they fail to grasp the import of their own words and how a “Jewish and democratic state” is totally incompatible with the rights of Palestinians.
A similar resolution introduced in the House claims that “the United States has long sought a just and stable future for Palestinians, and an end to the occupation, including opposing settlement activity and moves toward unilateral annexation in Palestinian territory.”
Setting aside Democratic mythmaking that the US has seriously sought an end to the occupation and justice for Palestinians – when it has long helped finance the occupation and armed Israel during horrific military attacks on Palestinian civilians, while denying Palestinian refugees’ right of return – the House resolution has similar problems to the one in the Senate.
Representative Alan Lowenthal’s resolution, with its 122 Democratic co-sponsors, resolves to “ensure the State of Israel’s survival as a secure Jewish and democratic state.”
There is nothing there about a state for all its people.
Israel has effectively imposed an undemocratic one-state solution – in other words apartheid – and is on the path to formalizing it.
But members of Congress are still insisting on a two-state solution – without calling for any effective measures to hold Israel accountable for blocking it – rather than demanding that everyone living in the territories currently under Israeli rule be granted full and equal rights.
They are late to understand what is happening, indeed, they still do not even understand Netanyahu, President Donald Trump and Friedman are changing the fundamental realities on the ground toward entrenching the system of apartheid Israel has spent decades creating without anything more than verbal opposition from the United States and the so-called international community.
Partial annexation would leave Palestinians in their truncated and disconnected bantustans, but would kill the pretense that Israel ever intends to leave the West Bank. And it may well prove to be only another step towards a future Israeli goal: full annexation of all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
Yet even partial annexation may leave Democrats slumbering and oblivious that Israel is hewing closely to South Africa’s bantustan model. In fact, members of Congress and some in the international community may be more likely to accept partial annexation because it would permit Palestinian municipal government over remaining Palestinian cantons.
Only one sitting member of Congress, Minnesota’s Betty McCollum, has had the courage to name the system Israel has created as apartheid. Her name is on the House resolution as well.
Trump and Netanyahu’s trial run with the Golan Heights certainly gives no reason to think that Democrats will rise to the occasion when it comes to similar moves against the West Bank.
Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, Executive Committee Member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, has offered her respected opinion to Newsweek, regarding the U.S. so-called “peace plan”, led by President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Ashrawi calls the trio of Jason Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, and David Friedman – “a group of ideologically driven men with personal ties to the U.S. president and Israel, no experience in world politics and no interest in international law or the universality of human rights.”
She calls the group “a lethal combination of religious fundamentalist and nationalistic bias… with views that align with the far right in Israel.”
The PLO Executive Member stated that Jared Kushner, the United States president Donald Trump’s son-in-law, “as head of the Middle East ‘peace’ team, is just one example of this unqualified and irresponsible group.”
She claimed Kushner supports and funds the Israeli occupation army, as well as funding “construction in the illegal Israeli Beit El settlement” near the central West Bank city of Ramallah.
Friedman too is accused of being invested in the illegal Israel settlements, heading “an organization called American Friends of Beit El.” Greenblatt’s personal ties with Trump and open allegiance to Israel is also exposed.
Ashrawi states “Trump’s ‘peace team’ is seemingly stuck in the colonial era, when the subjugation of other peoples was justified by the racist claim that they were incapable of governing themselves.”
She continued “In Palestine’s case, the international community has repeatedly and unequivocally recognized and reaffirmed this right for decades. But like his father-in-law, Kushner is obviously ignorant of the law and averse to facts.”
Dr. Ashrawi declared that “Kushner is voicing the dominant bias of this administration, which treats Israel with positive exceptionalism, rewards and bribes while singling out Palestinians for negative exceptionalism, bullying and exclusion.”
She lists the actions of the U.S. since Trump entered office;
1. “The unilateral and illegal decision to recognize Israel’s illegitimate annexation of Jerusalem was just the first in a series of hostile and irresponsible political and financial decisions—aimed not at achieving peace but at pummeling the Palestinians into submission and capitulation.”
2. “The administration also closed the Palestinian representative office in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, which had served U.S.-Palestinian relations since 1844.”
3. “It discontinued Congress-approved funding to Palestinian civil society, hospitals and infrastructure, and then, following the advice of this “peace team,” it defunded UNRWA, the U.N. agency mandated to serve over 5 million Palestinian refugees.”
Lastly, Dr. Ashrawi affirms that “the Palestinian people are not begging for charity or seeking to improve the conditions of their captivity.” “Palestinians seek to realize their natural and inalienable right to self-determination, freedom, sovereignty and dignity—none of which depend on Kushner’s approval nor the administration’s endorsement.”
Ashrawi calls the trio of Jason Greenblatt, Jared Kushner, and David Friedman – “a group of ideologically driven men with personal ties to the U.S. president and Israel, no experience in world politics and no interest in international law or the universality of human rights.”
She calls the group “a lethal combination of religious fundamentalist and nationalistic bias… with views that align with the far right in Israel.”
The PLO Executive Member stated that Jared Kushner, the United States president Donald Trump’s son-in-law, “as head of the Middle East ‘peace’ team, is just one example of this unqualified and irresponsible group.”
She claimed Kushner supports and funds the Israeli occupation army, as well as funding “construction in the illegal Israeli Beit El settlement” near the central West Bank city of Ramallah.
Friedman too is accused of being invested in the illegal Israel settlements, heading “an organization called American Friends of Beit El.” Greenblatt’s personal ties with Trump and open allegiance to Israel is also exposed.
Ashrawi states “Trump’s ‘peace team’ is seemingly stuck in the colonial era, when the subjugation of other peoples was justified by the racist claim that they were incapable of governing themselves.”
She continued “In Palestine’s case, the international community has repeatedly and unequivocally recognized and reaffirmed this right for decades. But like his father-in-law, Kushner is obviously ignorant of the law and averse to facts.”
Dr. Ashrawi declared that “Kushner is voicing the dominant bias of this administration, which treats Israel with positive exceptionalism, rewards and bribes while singling out Palestinians for negative exceptionalism, bullying and exclusion.”
She lists the actions of the U.S. since Trump entered office;
1. “The unilateral and illegal decision to recognize Israel’s illegitimate annexation of Jerusalem was just the first in a series of hostile and irresponsible political and financial decisions—aimed not at achieving peace but at pummeling the Palestinians into submission and capitulation.”
2. “The administration also closed the Palestinian representative office in Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Consulate General in Jerusalem, which had served U.S.-Palestinian relations since 1844.”
3. “It discontinued Congress-approved funding to Palestinian civil society, hospitals and infrastructure, and then, following the advice of this “peace team,” it defunded UNRWA, the U.N. agency mandated to serve over 5 million Palestinian refugees.”
Lastly, Dr. Ashrawi affirms that “the Palestinian people are not begging for charity or seeking to improve the conditions of their captivity.” “Palestinians seek to realize their natural and inalienable right to self-determination, freedom, sovereignty and dignity—none of which depend on Kushner’s approval nor the administration’s endorsement.”
