Palestinian peace plan controversy

The U.S. government has recently found itself at the center of controversy with foreign policy. This time around, that controversy is about President Trump’s proposed “peace deal” between Israel and Palestine. The controversy manifests in the form of disagreement with the proposed plan, because by and large, it encourages a partitioning of land that would anticipatedly do more harm than good—especially to Palestinians.

Essentially, the plan proposes isolation of Israeli territory that will only increase the divide between Palestine and Israel, trampling on the Palestinians’ rights to have an independent sovereign state and almost directly forcing them to conform to a ghetto-like lifestyle.

Given that such partitioned ghettos, which have been deemed illegal and violating international law, already exist in large numbers, this deal stands only to perpetuate subversion of law and international integrity, supporting the usurpation of Palestinian freedom.

More specifically, the deal takes the strategic power and control of Palestinian territory already in Israeli hands and almost vindicates it, stomping out the idea of Palestine achieving any wholesome, healthy independence or autonomy. All access to natural resources, economic freedom and security, transportation, land use, and all the other facets of control that a nation has over its own body, would be fully compromised, with a bleak probability of living conditions ameliorating.

To exacerbate the issue, in exchange for losing their rights, Palestinians are promised an economic compensation of reportedly fifty-billion dollars of “investment over the next 10 years. How do the two things equate? Who knows…

Even when announcing the deal, President Trump “spoke about Israeli security but failed to mention even once Palestinian security—a security that should arguably be more emphasized toward the oppressed Palestinians, but ostensibly, this is not so. If the deal comes to pass as it is, then another race of people may be a victim of institutionalized segregation, and the original intent of implementing and enacting foreign policy would be further undermined, likely to the detriment of inter and intra-national harmony and healthy relationships.

Darlon Rivere – Staff Writer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *