Director of Communications Fahrettin Altun made evaluations for the Hürriyet daily regarding the so-called peace plan of the US for the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
What was the first thing that caught your eye on the 189-page plan called the "Deal of the Century", which was announced to the international public by US President Donald Trump on January 28, 2020?
First of all, I must immediately say that there is a problem with the name of the mentioned plan. I think the terms "Middle East Peace Plan" or "Deal of the Century" are quite wrong. As you read the content of the plan, you see this very clearly. In our opinion, this one mainly deserves to be called the "Occupation and Destruction Plan" or "Betrayal of the Century." Concerning the conceptualization, objection is also a form of action. As a result, if we used the right sets of concept, we would discuss the issue on the right ground. You also may have noticed that people in Turkey or many other parts of the world, who have been sensitive about the Palestinian issue since the first day, have refused this name by themselves. I think that even this alone is an important objection reflex.
In your opinion, what are the problematic elements in the plan?
Rather than a bilateral negotiation, this plan represents a unilateral imposition. Even those who know this subject a little bit would see it very clearly that the only side is not Israel but Netanyahu and the political elite around him. Considering the issue from this point of view, you can see that the plan has nothing to do with the peace agenda or the sustainable solution of the Palestinian-Israeli issue. It turns out that the plan only aims to remove Netanyahu’s leadership crisis. Dozens of important articles highlighting the domestic political calculations were published in major US media outlets throughout last week. Those who prepared the plan know very well that it cannot be implemented. Their entire purpose is to earn time and expand the area under their occupation in the meantime. This is not a Peace Plan, but a declaration of war.
How should we evaluate the EU countries’ attitude towards this plan of Trump and Netanyahu? We see that some states have similar opinions as Turkey.
It is time for Europe and the European Union to put their diplomacy-based agenda on the table strongly. They should now develop a healthier policy regarding the Middle East and address the Palestinian-Israeli issue from this perspective because this plan of Trump and Netanyahu eliminates all elements of global diplomacy, while narrowing the area of the EU and European countries. The Palestinian issue is an opportunity for them to overcome all these shortcomings. Even if they cannot address this issue with any other moral or ethical concern, it would be sufficient if they only defend the international law. They also know very well that the growth and deepening of the crisis in the Middle East will also strengthen the insecure atmosphere in Europe. Each and every step that nurtures instability in the Middle East would also nurture the security problem in the EU and European countries.
The USA has also previously made many attempts regarding the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Is this initiative of US President Trump different from the others?
The approach of the occupation and destruction plan to past agreements is based entirely on opportunism, because it argues that the mentioned agreements do not bring peace and cannot solve many problems and strives to provide it with a different legitimacy area than others. In particular, an approach, which is not based on any of the solution proposals put forward by the UN and UNSC and other international institutions, has been demonstrated. Furthermore, the plan considers the UNSC decisions a part of the problem and partially lays the burden of failure to establish peace on these decisions. Some internationally accepted texts on the Palestinian issue are invalidated as de facto. At this point, another problem that concerns the whole world emerges. The plan not only makes the Palestinian issue unresolvable, but also renders the international law and treaties, and global organizations such as the UN dysfunctional and worthless. This problem does not only belong to the Palestinian people.
Let’s have a more detailed look at the plan.
Is this plan legitimate?
We are faced with a plan that focuses on maintaining Israel’s occupation, rather than solving the Israeli-Palestinian issue. They are trying to realize this by supporting Israel's theo-political maximalist theses. For example, especially in the third part of the plan, they described Palestine as the people instead of considering it as a state at the very beginning by saying that peace will be between the State of Israel and Palestinians. Obviously, there is no possibility of implementation due to the strict objection of the parties, and the implementation efforts will deepen the crisis and the conflict. The political leaders’ irresponsible behavior is initiating a process that throws the world into fire. The plan contradicts the international law and totally fails to comply with the UN and UN resolutions. It is not legitimate at all.
When we look at the map of the plan that has been put forth, we encounter a situation like a state within the state, just like one of them has swallowed the other. How should we read this map?
When you look at the map, you can see that the Palestinian territory has shrunk by 70 percent. As one of the most fundamental pillars of the Palestinian issue, the return of 6 million Palestinian refugees to their land as contrary to Article 194 of the UN is prevented in this context. In addition, there are efforts aimed at making the existing illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank permanent. Considering the proposed framework, we see that the borders of a Palestinian state that will be established in four years are drawn as ungovernable and shattered. With this strategy, the lands left to Palestine are connected with each other by bridges and tunnels, and the external 'border' control and crossings of the new state in the interconnections pass directly over to the control of Israel. For Palestine, a state with a capital in the suburbs only outside of the West Bank wall of Jerusalem is envisaged. Could this in any event be acceptable? All of Jerusalem is left to Israel and Israel becomes an absolute sovereign country after Jerusalem is accepted as “undivided capital” of Israel.
The plan mentions a Palestinian state. Isn’t this a positive development?
Although the plan talks about a new and independent Palestinian state, there is plenty of evidence that it’s only a so-called freedom on paper. For instance, the new Palestinian state that is promised to be created is not given the right to form an army and border security is left to Israel. The plan also suggests that the security of Palestine can be provided by lightly armed police. Moreover, Israel’s approval is required for the Palestinian state to even become a member of international organizations. Although the plan seems to allow the establishment of the Palestinian state, it binds it to specific conditions. As such, all the conditions seem to have been created with an arbitrariness to be approved by Israel. In other words, how can a state without an army, that has no control over its airspace and territorial waters, has all its decisions approved by another state, including its participation in international institutions, be a sovereign state?
There is no example of this in diplomacy, international law, and international literature.
Looking at the regional states’ reactions to the plan in question there is some fragmentation. Do you think the Trump administration took this into account while shaping his plan?
The policy pursued by the US in this initiative can be defined as “hard power” and “fait accompli”. For the plan is based on the weakness and disorganization among Muslims, rather than any diplomatic ground or efforts to gain support. They also specifically analysed the internal conflicts in the Islamic world and adopted a policy that sought to incorporate all possible problems and challenges into the Islamic world.
Trump’s thanking UAE, Oman and Bahrain and the Saudi Arabian Embassy’s open support of the plan emerge as important products of this fragmentation. This is a plan that tries to highlight the controversy and competition within the Islamic world in order to conceal the conflict caused by the plan in the Muslim world.
We know that the US and Israel are skilled in communication and perception. While preparing these documents, they undoubtedly added a lot of details for their interlocutors. How did you find the language of the plan in this context? Which items stand out?
Here, unlike all the previous US-based negotiation processes for the Palestinian-Israeli issue, for the first time a plan was devised independently and without a comprehensive communication framework. No narrative aiming to provide support has been taken into account.
The effort to legitimize the peace plan is based on the “ineffectiveness” of the previous ones. The whole rhetoric was a repetitive message which said “no progress has been made, time has been wasted and the Israeli people have been exposed to terrorism”. We are not presented with a discourse framework, argumentation and an attempt to engage players other than Israel and the Zionist circles. Therefore, this language, which rejects reconciliation and is patronizing, is the clearest indication of why the plan cannot be called a “peace plan” and is likely to fail.
The Trump-Netanyahu plan puts religious arguments and discourses at its core. Does this have a significance in international politics?
It has no significance. In terms of international law, Palestinians’ legal and human rights demands are more legitimate than Israel’s religious demands. For instance, Israel, which is to be identified on the basis of religion, gives no assurance in the plan as to how non-Jews, Muslims and Christian Arabs, for example, will secure their rights. Could such a situation be explained by universal values, by modern and secular understanding of the state or by international law?
What is the situation in the status of Jerusalem?
The plan assumes the indivisibility of Jerusalem amid UN resolutions on Jerusalem and Oslo. The city is given under Israeli sovereignty as a whole. The US presented the decision issued in 1995 by the Jerusalem Embassy as the basis for that decision. In other words, they presented their own decision as a reason for Israel’s control over Jerusalem. It has neither worth, nor equivalent in international law.
And I have to say that, the plan conveys the status of Haram al-Sharif and the freedom of worship as an invention of Israel. However, everyone knows that the Ottoman status quo prevails in the old city. Since the Ottoman times, Jews can freely worship at the Wailing Wall, Christians in churches, and Muslims at Masjid al-Aqsa. Israel, however, violates the status quo unilaterally by deciding at what age Muslims can enter the Haram al-Sharif. Jerusalem’s multi-religious system is being dismantled and actually a cultural genocide is aimed at.
Do you think it is possible for this plan to be implemented?
Due to its style of preparation, content and the model it offers, the plan is doomed to fail. The plan intends to remove from the table the possibility of a two-state solution, accepted by the UN and UNSC with the resolutions 242 and 338. Those who have prepared the plan know very well that it cannot be put into practice. As the plan is not based on applicability, but on "inadmissibility" for Palestinians and Muslims. Since those who drafted the plan know that Palestinians would not accept it, even under pressure, Palestinian parties were totally excluded from the whole process. This has provided another benefit for Israel. Israel will use the rhetoric of “Palestinians who objected to the plan (peace)” to further deepen its occupation, legitimize its unilateral annexations internationally, and even request direct military aid from the U.S. (against Gaza). The content of the plan reveals that the equation is based on Palestinians’ objection rather than acceptance. Their entire purpose is to earn time and expand the area under their occupation in the meantime. I would like to underline once again that it is not a peace plan but a declaration of war.
Israel is a state that shapes its entire strategy based on security. To which extent is this reflected in the plan?
The plan aims to create a security architecture that prioritizes the security of the Israeli state. This gives Israel the whole initiative over the security of the Palestinian state and public. In order for the so-called security architecture to be implemented, they needed a Palestinian state without territorial continuity. Under the plan, Israel will have the right to intervene at the military, policing and intelligence level at its own will and with its own excuse. Under the scope of the foreseen security architecture, they describe all Palestinian entities, organizations and political parties as absolute threats to Israel.
How does the U.S. justify the implementation of this plan?
This issue has been considered in the plan. When it comes to Israel’s security, the plan states that the U.S. will fulfil all the requirements to ensure Israel’s security without resorting to any other state or international organization. The U.S. thus hints that it can intervene anytime in favour of Israel and by suspending international law. This reinforces the impression that the U.S.-Israel defence agreement, which has long been on the Trump administration’s agenda, might be put into effect.
Another issue regarding Palestine that has been awaiting a solution for years is the return of Palestinian refugees. What does the plan say about this issue?
The right to return of Palestinians who have been forced out of their houses during the foundation of Israel and subsequent occupations, was a right that the Palestinians had upheld for a long time as a prerequisite for peace negotiations. The newly introduced occupation plan does not provide an arrangement that enable the return of refugees. It does not include a solution suggestion for the refugee issue. It is because they thought it could lead to a disadvantage for Israel, considering the demographic dynamics. Since the return of nearly 6 million displaced Palestinians would result in Israeli state losing its population depth to the benefit of Arabs. The plan envisages an economic program under which Palestinians residing in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt can obtain citizenship from the countries they live in, thus clearly revealing its goal of depriving Palestine of its territory as well as its population. We are witnessing a situation whereby refugees are forced to relinquish their rights, are prevented from returning to their homes under Israeli occupation and those who want to return to Palestine will have to seek Israel’s approval.
What is Turkey’s attitude on this issue? Which initiatives shall we take at the international level?
Our President has maintained a very clear stance on the Palestinian issue for years, not just since this plan was announced. It is because we have a principal approach on the Palestinian issue and we consider this plan to represent the annexation of the occupied Palestinian territory. Our President has made it clear. We do not recognize and accept this plan, which in appearance foresees a two-state solution but in fact completely destroys Palestine and usurps Jerusalem entirely. As underlined many times before, Turkey will never support any initiative that is not accepted by Palestinians.
Since the first day that the plan was announced, we have taken steps in support of all regional and international initiatives. Our President has been conducting all initiatives under the framework of leader-to-leader diplomacy. He talked to the President of the State of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas and informed him that he would support all of his efforts. We will take steps to accurately inform the world public opinion about the plan and disclose its true intention. Turkey also promised Abbas that it would support all of his diplomatic and legal initiatives. Similarly, our President met with the Head of Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh in Istanbul. Moreover, our Foreign Minister will attend a meeting about the plan to be held in Jeddah. Our President is also making efforts to ensure a high attendance at this meeting. We hope that this occupation and annexation plan will enable some Arab countries to see the truth from now on.
Our country has united on this issue. What do you think about this?
As you would know, the Turkish Grand National Assembly issued a joint declaration on this topic. All political parties have left their political differences aside and very clearly displayed a united stance, which will certainly serve as a valuable aspect strengthening our hand in diplomacy. It is also valuable that this stance has set an example for other countries too. Both our leaders and nation know it is the lack of unity within the Islamic world that gives them the courage to introduce this occupation plan as a peace plan. We do not regard this plan independently of all the coup and occupation attempts in the region. Those who played a role in the coup and occupation attempt of July 15 will not succeed in Palestine even though they did in Egypt. This plan is doomed to fail since it is an effort aimed at achieving success based on domestic political calculations without careful thinking.