President Trump does nothing
like his predecessors (except for his model, Andrew Jackson), thereby
destabilising his partners. The « Deal of the Century » that he dreamed up for
Palestine angered President Abbas, who interpreted it from the point of view of
previous US propositions. Could he have been wrong?
President
Donald Trump has declared several times that his method of government was
enough to solve many different conflicts, and that he even hoped, during the
course of his mandate (or mandates), to attain peace between the Palestinians
and the Israëlis.
According
to the international press, Donald Trump has evolved, for US electoral reasons.
Although he once seemed little interested by religious questions, he has
apparently moved closer to the Christian Zionists and is now under the
influence of his vice-President, the Evangelical Christian Mike Pence, and one
of his sponsors, the Jewish casino-operator Sheldon Adelson.
President Trump’s decisions
to move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem, to interrupt the financing
of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in
the Near East (UNRWA), and then to recognise Israëli
sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan, have been interpreted as confirming
his pro-Israëli bias.
All
this is true, but does not enable us to understand Donald Trump’s singular
approach to the Palestinian conflict, which could lead to serious errors of
interpretation. In order to grasp his approach, we have to study his model,
President Andrew Jackson, and replace it in the particular situation of the
United States before the War of Secession.
Two British colonies – the
United States and Israël
Like
Israël and Rhodesia, the United States is a Western colony which has freed
itself from the British Empire. However, their situations are very different.
Israël is colony born of a
political project formulated in the 17th century by Lord Cromwell – the
instrumentation of the Jewish diaspora by the Empire. Its realisation, even via
the auto-proclamation of independence by armed forces, still corresponds to this
project. On the contrary, the United States is the fruit of the Puritan and
Egalitarian project of the same Lord Protector for the British population. In
both cases, the goal was to create a new model of society defined by the
religious principles of a single Christian sect (and not Jewish) [1].
Colonisation, occupation and
extermination of the Native Americans
In
the Americas, more than half of the British immigrants before independence were
poor wretches who hoped to use their own production tool, a patch of land, in
exchange for a service to the King. They accepted the status of indentured
servant for between 4 and 7 years, and were harshly treated. In order to
complete the work of these temporary British slaves, the King opted for
permanent African slaves. As from the declaration of independence, voluntary
immigration was accelerated and diversified – Germans, French, Dutch and Jews –
while the indentured servants were replaced by African slaves, who were treated
even worse. The Europeans settled progressively on the lands of the natives,
the Indians. Space was so vast that the arrival of a few hundred thousand
foreigners posed no serious problem. But they kept coming.
At
the beginning of the 19th century, the humanist President Thomas Jefferson
imagined a plan for the sharing of the continent by force – to the West of the
Mississippi, the Indians, and to the East, the Europeans. After having deported
the tribes to Louisiana, he recommended allowing the individuals who were «
civilised » to move to the East and integrate the colonial culture. He thought
it would become progressively possible to negotiate with them according the
norms of his own culture.
In fact, the main problem was
not the space. Even with the immigrants, whether they were free or slaves, the
land was still underpopulated. It was a question of the cultural difference.
The Indians did not believe that it was possible to own land, but that a tribe
could exercise its sovereignty over a certain area. Since, according to their
beliefs, the Earth could not be owned, it could not be bought or sold. To
pursue this comparison, in Palestine, the Syrians [2] had already been colonised by the Ottomans,
and had got used to it. They were mainly sedentary, and accepted individual
ownership of the Earth, but – in agreement with the colonial power – they
considered that Muslim land could not be governed by non-Muslims.
When
General Andrew Jackson became President (1829-37), the demographic pressure of
the Europeans was increasing as they arriving in ever-growing increasing
numbers in the East. Jackson, therefore, decided to extend Jefferson’s policy.
Instead of war with the different Indian tribes, he attempted to substitute
Treaties which would guarantee their relocation to « reserves », always further
West. Most of the tribes refused this compromise. The principle was of course
rejected by the following waves of immigrants and by the most powerful
landowners.
On
the contrary, today in Palestine, the Jewish population is stable – immigration
no longer even compensates for the emigration – while the Arab population is
growing. And yet the expansion of Israëli territory continues without any
necessity.
Andrew Jackson has remained
in history as the mass murderer of the Indians, the man who planned the
genocide of the « Trail of Tears » [3]. This is wrong. He refused systematic
extermination – which was later commanded by General Custer – and sought to
solve a problem for which there was no solution. The colonists, just like the
Israëlis today, can not return to to the lands which their parents had left.
Meanwhile, the only Indian tribes which had survived the massacres had signed a
peace treaty with Jackson. The only truly peaceful solution would have been the
fusion of the two communities, but this was impossible due to the cultural
divide – an obstacle which no longer exists in Palestine [4].
The « Deal of the Century »
When
Donald Trump proposed the economic development of Gaza and the West Bank, with
no exchange, he was applying Thomas Jefferson’s policy for the « civilised
Indians ». He believed that by integrating them into « the market », he would
arrive at peace. He did this all the more generously in that this development
would not be financed by the United States, but by the Arab monarchies. In this
way, he opposed the Israëli strategy – supported by Sheldon Adelson – of
sabotaging the Palestinian economy with the intention of forcing the
Palestinians to flee in order to survive.
When
Donald Trump refused to support the two-state solution, and returned the
question for negotiation between the parties concerned, he acted as Andrew
Jackson had done during the negotiations for the Indian Treaties. By doing so,
he was opposing the policy adopted by Israël since the Oslo Accords.
The
Palestinian Authority considers that it has already accepted a compromise by
supporting the UNO resolutions. It, therefore, demands their application, which
Israël has been refusing to implement for 70 years. It, therefore, rejects out
of hand the « Deal of the Century », because Donald Trump is ignoring this
demand.
This
attitude is legitimate and honourable. All the governments in the world know
that if the resolution of the conflict is founded on the rules of Anglo-Saxon
Law, in violation of those of International Law, peace here would open the
doors to other wars elsewhere.
Indeed,
Anglo-Saxon Law distinguishes itself from all other forms of Justice in the
world. It states that two opposing parties in a case of criminal offence can
close the affair by way of a transaction which ignores local Law. In the
national context, this is class Justice, while in the international context,
it’s the law of the strongest.
In
any case, the Palestinian Authority is wrong to accuse Donald Trump of being
more favourable to Israël than George Bush Jr. On this point, their attitude
can only be explained by the fact that they owe their judicial existence to the
Oslo Accords. It would be more efficient to consider that, despite his
arrogance, Donald Trump is acting in good faith – that his plan is less
favourable to the Israëlis than the status quo, and that he is not hostile to
international Law – in short, that certain aspects of his mediation could be
positive for the Palestinian cause.
My analysis may be polluted
by the fact that I have not lived under occupation for 70 years, and that I was
educated by a colonising nation, but I do not believe that the present choice
is between Collaboration or Resistance, as it was during the Nakba [5]. Thus I have no lessons to give, but wish
simply to state that we must not repeat the errors of the past and insult a
person who is opening a door in good faith.
It
seems that President Mahmoud Abbas is thinking about reorientating his
position. He ordered the release of the business leader who, according to Abbas,
betrayed the Palestinian cause by taking part in the Bahrein workshop on the «
Deal of the Century ». and is preparing a delegation to go and check the
temperature of the White House.
—
[1] “Who
is the Enemy?”, by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, 4 August 2014.
[2] Reminder – before the British colonisation,
Palestine was not an independent state, but a region of Greater Syria within
the Ottoman Empire.
[3] During their deportation, several thousand
Cherokees died of hunger and fatigue on the « Trail of Tears ».
[4] During the three centuries of Ottoman
occupation, the Arab populations were deprived of schooling. Only rich families
could afford an education for their children. This resulted in the collapse of
Arab civilisation (which was already in decline).Today the UNRWA has access to
a high level of university education. The Agency was encouraged by Israël,
which saw in this an additional stimulation to persuade the Palestinians to
abandon their land and leave to seek wealth overseas.
[5] In 1948, David Ben Gourion unilaterally
proclaimed the independence of the Hebrew state, in the name of the Jewish
security forces. Simultaneously, between 700,000 and 900,000 Palestinians were
expelled from their homes and their land. This was the Nakba (catastrophe).
French
intellectual, founder and chairman of Voltaire Network and the Axis for Peace
Conference. His columns specializing in international relations feature in
daily newspapers and weekly magazines in Arabic, Spanish and Russian. His last
two books published in English : 9/11 the Big Lie and Pentagate.
The
articles on Voltaire Network may be freely reproduced provided the source is
cited, their integrity is respected and they are not used for commercial
purposes (license CC BY-NC-ND).
