You are here

The ‘deal’ of the century

Feb 07,2018 - Last updated at Feb 07,2018

No one knows for sure yet what the particulars of the so-called “deal” of the century are all about! The word "deal", rather than solution, is a business, un-political, problematic and an awkward term. At any rate, Jordan and the Jordanians won’t accept a final solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian divergence — without the Palestinians’ consent to what they believe to be a fair, just and final solution.

The very little we know about US President Donald Trump’s plan to attain such a settlement, or deal, is still shrouded in vagueness, to most of us, and, therefore, it has nothing to reveal at this point in time, or promise, in some provisional form, what it is going to exactly offer to both Palestinians and Israelis. Nevertheless, if the Palestinians accept what it offers, which is unlikely, I see no reason why the rest of the Arab-Muslim Middle East countries may not accept this “deal”, so to speak.

If the offer comprises some kind of a Palestinian authority/government in the West Bank — to exercise sovereignty and self-control within a national sphere, including Jerusalem — I would think that this would be an acceptable solution as long as it does not violate the international law and the geo-political rights of the people who live in the occupied territories and the diaspora.

The historical deal — an aura of ambiguity thus far — is one-sided. It promises to support the Israelis at the expense of the Palestinians. If this final situation is imposed on Palestinians, no one ever, including the Palestinian Authority, is going to accept it, for what it is worth. In that case, the long promised Palestinian state won’t be viable, nor would it be feasible, unless the deal has been intended to deconstruct and obliterate the Palestinian question/case altogether, once and for all. Therefore, the long hoped for two-state solution would eventually be a farfetched, mindboggling, unconceivable and non-realistic assumption based on one-state solution instead!

The US' recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel recently was not good enough perhaps; President Trump has proclaimed that entire Jerusalem is a firm pact in favour of Israel, simultaneously expressing his trepidation that the US economic aid to the Palestinians would be suspended if they abandon peace talks. Nevertheless, I, for one, uncertain whether such a dialogue is all that it takes to solve the decades-old Palestinian quandary.

The least we can expect in this volatile part of the world is the sheer existence of a free, independent, but sovereign, Palestinian state solely predicated on having a capital in Jerusalem as politically and geographically defined by the UN resolutions for that matter. First, because it is the law; second, because it has been occupied; third, because of the religious shrines holy to Muslims and Christians alike.  


In the end, let us not overlook the historical fact that Israel occupied East Jerusalem in the second major Arab-Israeli war of 1967; the western half of the old city had been already seized in the 1948 war, 19 years earlier. Indeed, the condition of Jerusalem remains one of the main poking, rummaging points in any effort, political and otherwise, to solve the prolonged Palestinian-Israeli convoluted conflict impartially and righteously.

23 users have voted.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
9 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.


Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.