Bahrain’s capital Manama hosted the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop that aimed to bring a new framework to present new financial instruments to develop Palestine and Gaza. Despite the stated aim, the workshop received wide criticism from not only Palestinians, but also other Arab countries that considered the meeting as part of a so-called “Deal of the Century.” The agreement was previously proposed by Jared Kushner, Middle East advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump and aimed to resolve the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine.

In the opening speech of the workshop, Kushner claimed that the so-called “Deal of the Century” is actually the opportunity of the century that can pave the way for a peaceful Middle East. He stressed that together with Arab partners, the U.S. administration is offering a 50 billion USD aid package for Palestine and its neighbouring countries, in order to help them create jobs, improve infrastructure and develop living conditions. Despite the positive discourse, Kushner’s initiatives received strong reactions. His proposal, which does not offer a state for Palestinians, has been strongly refused by the Arabs who have been living under Israeli occupation for decades. For this reason, the Manama workshop was seen as an attempt to prepare Palestinians for a secret deal that would eventually lead them to lose their centuries-long homeland.

Kushner’s “Deal of the Century” has been strongly refused by the Arabs who have been living under Israeli occupation for decades. 

Therefore, although the economic development of Palestine was presented as the main agenda of the workshop, the most important goal was to garner support from Arab leaders for Kushner’s “Middle East Peace Plan.” The participants of the meeting is a clear indicator as to how the U.S. administration is forcing Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to support Washington’s plans towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Manama summit is also supposed to serve to strengthen this alliance led by the Trump Administration.

In addition to the host Bahrain, a number of other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, and Egypt participated in the summit, while Iraq and Lebanon opposed the meeting. Algeria, Libya, Somalia, Oman and Kuwait did not clearly state their position on the meeting, but they were reluctant to providing public support.

The “Peace to Prosperity” Workshop led by the U.S. in Bahrain was an attempt to prepare Palestinians for a secret deal. 

It was also noticed that Palestine and Israel – countries that would be directly affected by the meeting – did not participate on an official level. While the Palestinian side declared its reaction to both the Manama meeting and the Deal of the Century, Israeli representatives did not participate as Tel-Aviv does not have diplomatic relations with Manama. However, many Israeli businessmen and journalists as well as Jewish religious figures from the U.S. and Canada attended the meeting.

Some of these rabbis organized a religious ceremony in a synagogue in Bahrain, which was also attended by Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s Special Envoy for the Middle East. The images of that ceremony were widely shared on social media, where Greenblatt and rabbis were seen singing “The People of Israel Live” covered with the symbols of the Jewish faith.

One of the highlights of the workshop is the low profile participation from Arab countries. This situation shows the concerns of these countries and the fear that they may cause domestic backlash. As a matter of fact, protests were organized in some countries including Morocco, Lebanon and Jordan, due to the policies of their governments towards the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Protesters also criticized Washington’s Middle East policies and the recent summit held in Manama, Bahrain.

There was low profile participation from many Arab states to the workshop held by Kushner in Bahrain as these states feared that their stance may cause domestic backlash. 

Public figures, opinion leaders and politicians also reacted to the Bahrain meeting. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, criticized the stance of the Arab countries towards the Palestine issue and considered the Bahrain summit as a step in the process of Arab countries selling Palestine to Israel and the United States.

Observers also notice the special attention of Bahraini organizers to host Israeli participants, particularly from business and media circles. Even though Bahrain and Israel does not have diplomatic relations, a number of Israeli businessmen and journalists were invited to a meeting, probably for the first time over half a century. In his first interview of its kind to an Israeli newspaper, Bahrain’s foreign minister Sheikh Khaled al-Khalifa stated that his country supports Israel’s right to defend itself from threats in the region and that there can be official relations between the two countries in the coming period.

Although the real motivation of the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop was presented to be a solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict, its main purpose was to prepare a political venue by which Israel’s occupation policies can be institutionalized. Despite the heavy pressure from the U.S. government, the participation of Arab countries at the Bahrain summit was limited due to the possible backlash Arab states could receive from their domestic polity. Another reason was the lack of official representatives from both Israel and Palestine, the two countries that would be directly affected by the meeting. On the other hand, this Bahrain meeting, rejected by leading Muslim-majority states such as Turkey and Iran, is a continuation of the U.S.’ unilateral efforts to impose its agenda for the Middle East. For this reason, both the Bahrain meeting and the deal of the century will continue to be seen as an illegitimate initiative not only for the Palestinians but for the entire Islamic world.

The role of the U.S. in the Palestine-Israel issue has been debated for a long time. Until 2017, the U.S. has shown care in following a balanced policy at least on a discourse level between the parties. But, no matter whether the U.S president was a democrat or republican, a chief priority for the U.S. in designing its Middle East policies was to ensure Israel’s security whereas any remark regarding Palestinians was avoided, which has been evaluated as a relatively partial attitude.

Since the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has always intervened in the developments concerning Israel. The role of Washington in motivating particularly the Arabs during both Arab-Israeli wars and the peace agreements Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan after the wars cannot be denied. Besides, the U.S. has precluded decisions made against Israel in the United Nations (UN) and other international platforms but it also has respected the principle decisions of the UN regarding the Israel-Palestine issue. The country has also been attentive to the coherence between UN decisions and official statements of the U.S. Department of State and White House.

In contrast to the conventional U.S. policy regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, Trump gave signals of his pro-Israel stance from the first days of his presidency.

It must also be noted that the Oslo Accords that created the present status quo in the Israel-Palestine issue were also carried into effect with the efforts of the U.S. But the atmosphere of convergence between the parties thanks to the agreements was disturbed after the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, as a result of rising conservative tendencies in Israel. Several attempts by different parties remained inconclusive. Eventually, with Donald Trump’s inauguration as the U.S. President on 20 January, 2017, the U.S. has ended its somehow balanced policies on the Israel-Palestine issue. In contrast to conventional U.S. policies, Trump gave signals of his pro-Israel stance from the first days of his presidency.  

Trump’s pro-Israel policy

Before his election as the U.S. president, Trump opened a campaign office in the Jewish settlement of Karnei Shomron located nearby Nablus governorate in the West Bank and donated to the organizations in the settlement by saying that the Jewish settlers would not impede a possible peace. But at that time, the UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was taken since the U.S. did not use its veto power, ruled that all kinds of Jewish settlements are forbidden and the existing ones are required to be evacuated urgently in reference to previous decisions. Despite the ruling, Trump did not find it risky to disregard international law. As one of the most highlighted promises of Trump was to solve the Israel-Palestine issue, he took his first steps in this regard as soon as he came to office.

The appointment of Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman by Donald Trump shows that left the so-called peace process to the hands of solely pro-Israel figures.

Trump firstly appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner as his senior advisor and assigned him to solve the Israel-Palestine issue. He also appointed his former chief legal officer Jason Greenblatt as a negotiator. Lastly, he assigned David Friedman, a conservative Jewish, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, thus handing the so-called peace process to a team solely of pro-Israel figures. Even Israel was surprised by the appointment of Friedman as ambassador since it was thought that a person who has organic ties with the Jewish settlements would not be an ambassador as a requirement of the conventional U.S. policy. Naturally, Palestine does not expect this team to treat both sides equally and to offer a fair formula for peace. However, the developments over the past two years went far beyond this expectation and came to the point of annihilating the Palestinian administration and people.

The most important development in this context is undoubtedly Trump’s Jerusalem announcement. The U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with a law enacted in 1995, but all the presidents coming to office as of that date delayed its enforcement on the grounds of security concerns until Trump. Similarly, Trump continued his predecessors’ policy of signing a six-month waiver overriding the law when he came to power but added the note that he would review the situation. After the end of the six-month period, Trump did not sign another waiver and announced that the U.S. officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then, the proceedings to transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were completed on 14 May, 2018, within a short span of time contrary to the estimations.

The opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem with a ceremony on 14 May, 2018, resembled a religious ritual rather than a formal ceremony.

Following a quick restoration, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem was opened as the U.S. Embassy with a ceremony on 14 May, 2018, that resembled a religious ritual rather than a formal ceremony. Meanwhile, around 60 Palestinian civilians who gathered at the Israel-Gaza border to protest were killed by Israeli soldiers who fired into the crowd. The U.S. held Hamas accountable for the fatalities by arguing that the Israeli soldiers used their right of self-defense as Hamas sent civilians to the region, which clearly displayed the stance of the U.S. So, despite all the UN decisions in force, warnings issued by the countries in the region, and the calls of the EU and other international organizations for common sense; the U.S. ignored the current status of East Jerusalem, which is Palestinian territory, and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  

Imbued with the narrative of the Israeli administration, Washington firstly limited and then stopped all economic and social aid to the Palestinian administration on the pretext that the funds were paid to families of individuals imprisoned for or killed while allegedly committing attacks against Israel. Subsequently, the U.S. stopped providing aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which provides basic health, education, relief and social services to around 5 million Palestinian refugees in camps located in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria alongside Gaza and occupied Palestinian territory. This move cut off another life vein of Palestinian people. 

To restrict the political representation of Palestinians, the U.S. shut down the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, annulled the U.S. Embassy in East Jerusalem and forced the proceedings here to be conducted by the U.S. Embassy in West Jerusalem. Imposing sanctions on the international organizations and institutions including Palestine as a member, the U.S. administration left the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHRC) on the grounds that they engage in anti-Israel behaviors. In addition, it imposed sanctions on the judges of the International Criminal Court that conducted ex-officio investigations on the Gaza flotilla raid in 2010, violations during the 2014 Gaza attack, the restrictions regarding Al-Aqsa Mosque, the extortion of Palestinian lands and properties, and the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli military against those joining the Great March of Return. All these steps demonstrate that the U.S. has been going any length to back Israel.

Despite all the UN decisions in force, warnings by regional governments, and the calls of the EU & international organizations for common sense, the U.S. ignored the current status of East Jerusalem, which is Palestinian territory.

As a consequence of all these incidents, the U.S. administration has lost its role as a mediator and turned into a biased actor that only prioritizes Israel’s interests and disregards international law and practices along with its own values to that end. Although he claims that his prior missions include solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, Trump seemingly wishes to design the region in line with Israel’s demands by using force when necessary rather than offering a fair solution to the issue. This is proven by the information leaked about the so-called “deal of the century”, which is trying to be completed by engaging in consultations only with Israel and several Arab states in the region without including Palestine in the process. 

The myth of peace between Israel and Palestine

Israel Hayom, a daily newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson who is known for his close ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, published a news report attributed to unnamed authorities from Israel’s foreign ministry. The report included a text that was alleged to comprise several articles of the so-called peace accord. Although this content is not accepted as an official document, it is thought that Trump and his team intentionally leaked the text. Since Kushner, who managed the process until that time, had previously stated that the plan would be announced after the month of Ramadan, it is believed that the published content might be relevant due to its timing and some revisions might be made according to the responses.

The news report read that the agreement consists of ten articles. According to the first article, the agreement will enter into force upon its ratification by Israel, PLO and Hamas. The document read that a Palestinian state called “New Palestine” will be established in West Bank and Gaza, with the exception of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The new Palestine will not be allowed to create an army. The only weapons it will be allowed to possess will be light weapons for the police. The Israeli army will take on the defense of Palestine and Palestine will pay Israel in return. Hamas will deposit all its weapons and receive salaries. Jerusalem will not be divided or shared between Israel and New Palestine and will be the capital of both Israel and New Palestine. The parties will not be allowed to buy property from each other. The Israeli Jerusalem municipality will be responsible for all areas of the city except for education, which will be dealt with by the new Palestinian government. Taxes will be collected from Palestinians to pay for the services provided by the municipality. The present status of the holy sites will continue. Democratic elections will be held in Palestine within one year. One year after the elections and establishment of the government, Palestinians held in Israeli prisons will be released gradually over the course of three years.

The U.S.’ longstanding pro-Israel stance has turned into a gradually intensifying oppression mechanism over the past two years, which has stalemated Palestine in economic and social terms.

For Palestinians’ freedom of travel, a seaport and airport will be established in New Palestine within five years. Until then, Palestinians will use airports and seaports in Israel. These areas will be under Israeli control for security concerns. The Jewish settlements in the Area C of the West Bank, which constitutes around 65 percent of the West Bank, will remain the same and new roads will be built in certain spots to connect these settlements. In addition to the lands in Gaza, Egypt will lease new land to Palestine for use other than residence. The leasing price will be determined subsequently. A highway connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be established. China will pay 50% of its cost, while South Korea, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and the EU will each pay 10%. The Jordan Valley will remain under Israeli control. The road in this area will be widened to connect Palestine and Jordan. The border between Palestine and Jordan will be under Palestinian control.

The U.S. will pay 20% of the cost for all these infrastructure and development projects and the EU 10%, while Gulf states will fund 70% as they are the most direct beneficiaries of the deal.

The last part regarding the stages of implementation reads that if Hamas or the PLO refuses to sign the deal, the U.S. will cancel all financial support to the Palestinians, and if the PLO signs the deal but Hamas or Islamic Jihad refuses, the leaders of these two movements will be considered responsible. In a new war between Israel and the Gaza Strip, the U.S. will back Israel in targeting these leaders. It also adds that If Israel refuses to sign the deal, the U.S. will cease all financial support.

As can be seen, the deal that has been shaped by the U.S administration protects the present gains of Israel while failing to meet the demands of Palestinians on the subjects such as the 1967 borders, the status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and return rights of Palestinian refugees stated in the UN resolutions. Since Israel has developed closer ties with the Sunni Arab states in the region with the support of the U.S. within the recent period, the possibility of these countries supporting Palestine has been ruled out. Contrarily, they started pressing on Palestinians to make them accept the above-mentioned deal. These states try to dodge the issue by paying the amounts stated in the deal instead of paying regard to the rights and demands of Palestinian people.

The U.S.’ longstanding pro-Israel stance has turned into a gradually intensifying oppression mechanism over the past two years, which has stalemated Palestine in economic and social terms. Although accepting the deal seems like the only viable way to survive for the Palestinians, this so-called peace deal, which does not offer any noteworthy gain to Palestine despite all concessions, is likely to turn into a subjugation agreement that might cause the complete annihilation of Palestine.

The Israeli parliament adopted the Jewish Nation State Law last week. This legislation is considered as a turning point for Palestinians, who have already been facing discrimination under the Israeli occupation. The law passed recognizes Arabs living inside the Israeli state as second-class citizens and thus creates an apartheid regime, similar to that of South Africa. With the new law, Palestinians have been stripped of their basic human rights and are forced to live under a racist government. While the construction of Jewish settlements is defined in the context of national interests, the law defines Israel as a homeland for Jews all around the world. The new legislation also states that the construction of new settlements will be encouraged.

Details reveal that one of the main objectives of the new Jewish Nation State Law is to force Israelis of Arab origin, which consists of about 20% of the 8 million population of Israel, to re-consider their existence in the Israeli state. It is stated in the law that all Jews around the world have the right to return to their so-called “historical homeland.” The law defines Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli state and strips Arabic as an official language of the country. It can be argued that with such articles, the new law also aims to end the possibility of a two-state solution.

While Arab members of the Israeli parliament condemned the law, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that it was a historic step for the state of Israel. However, experts argued that Israel has officially become an apartheid state and Arab citizens of the country will be subjected to structured and institutionalized discrimination.

Despite heavy criticism from the Palestinians, Israel did not hesitate in adopting the new law. There are domestic and external reasons for this attitude of the Netanyahu government. On the domestic side, on-going investigations against Netanyahu have been dominating the political scene in the country. So, by adopting this law, Netanyahu aimed to change the perception of the public and their view towards the government and the corruption claims.

The second reason that allowed the Israeli government to adopt this law is related to the regional and international political environment, which has increasingly been in favor of Israel for the past year. Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency in 2017, Washington’s support for Israel has become crystal clear. This support was taken onto a new dimension with Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. These developments have thus allowed for Israel to follow harsher policies towards the Palestinians.

On the regional level, Israel has found a much favorable political environment to its policies vis-à-vis Palestine. This is largely due to the conformative attitude of three regional powers, namely, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt. These three countries have been eager to develop good relations with Tel Aviv. Therefore, as the relationship between these countries and Israel develop onto a strategic partnership, the struggle of the Palestinians lose its regional ground.

Another issue on the regional level is the ineffectiveness of other regional actors’ response to Israel. Countries such as Turkey and Iran have been pre-occupied with issues that are dominating their domestic political processes. Turkey has adopted a new political system and is trying to settle down its new state structure. Despite these changes, Turkey is still the leading country that supports the Palestinian cause. However, the pressure from Ankara is not enough alone to force Israel to stop its oppressive policies. Iran, on the other hand, is inactive in the face of Israeli policies due to its own domestic and external problems such as its human rights issue, poor economic conditions and increasing U.S. pressure.

It is expected that Israel will use this new law to legitimize its oppressive policies in Palestine. With the new law, the Israeli government aims to deepen its occupation by forcing the Palestinians to leave their homeland, which has been under occupation since 1948. The ineffectiveness of the Arab governments and the open support the U.S. has displayed towards Tel Aviv will contribute to Israel’s ability to maintain its oppressive policies in the upcoming period.

On Monday 7 May, 2018, the International Mount of Olives Peace Awards found their recipients at the Cemal Resit Rey Concert Hall in Istanbul, Turkey.

Under the premiership of the Turkish presidency and organized by the Al-Quds Platform in Istanbul, the International Mount of Olives Peace Awards were rewarded to four different individuals for their long commitment to the Palestinian cause.

With the attendance of President Erdogan, First Lady Emine Erdogan, Turkey’s Minister of Culture and Tourism Numan Kurtulmus, Mayor of Istanbul Vasip Sahin and leader of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mevlut Uysal, awards were given to Craig and Cindy Corrie on behalf of Rachel Corrie, to Noor Fitri, Benjamin Ladraa and to Muthir Hani on behalf of Naji al-Ali.

Opening the ceremony, chair of the Al-Quds Platform, Belkis Ibrahimhakkioglu thanked the President and guests for their attendance.

Drawing attention to the historical atrocities in Palestine, Ibrahimhakkioglu stated, “The 100. Anniversary of the Nakbah is nearly here. The map of Palestine was changed and the displacement of Palestinian people occurred in only 24 hours. Both Israel and the U.S. are going to celebrate their oppression. They are going to engulf a sense of enmity and blame others. And again, regardless of UN decisions, no one is going to do anything. Reactions are going to stay limited to on paper and the occupation in Palestine is going to continue.”

“Only a minimal number of voices are going to be heard. For this reason, we should increase the number of loud voices within these minimal voices. These loud voices should turn into strong and systematic programs.”

Speaking after Belkis Ibrahimhakkioglu, President Erdogan re-iterated his “the world is bigger than 5″ slogan in the name of finding peace for the decades-long Arab-Israeli conflict. The President also underlined what Ibrahimhakkioglu mentioned in her speech, and further stated that reform of the United Nations is now not a choice but a necessity, as countries – referring to the U.S. decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – regardless of UN decisions – can act alone and go againt the international community.

Who are the recipients?

Rachel Corrie

Craig and Cindy Corrie, parents of Rachel Corrie, a U.S. citizen who was killed by the Israeli army in 2003 received their award from President Erdogan.

Corrie was in the Gaza Strip in 2003 as part of her work with the International Solidarity movement, a movement that looks worldwide for people to help with their nonviolent protests against the Israeli military in the West Bank.

After her death, The Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice was founded to “support programs that foster connections between people, that build understanding, respect, and appreciation for differences, and that promote cooperation within and between local and global communities.”

After receiving their award from President Erdogan, during their speech, both Cindy and Craig Corrie upheld what their daughter stood for.

Thanking the Turkish public for standing by them since the death of their daughter, Cindy Corrie stated, “We are honored and humbled to be included among the recipients, and we are mindful of the fact that the people of Turkey have stood with our family since 2003 when Rachel was killed.”

Drawing attention to the continuing human rights infringements occurring in Palestine, Craig Corrie stated, “We have watched protesters and members of media brutally killed during these past weeks, as the people of Gaza have turned to the world, demanding their rights and an end to occupation and siege. As citizens of the world, we have an obligation to protect the lives of those everywhere, who at great risk, stand for freedom, and bear witness for us to injustice.”

Noor Fitri

Rewarded her award by Emine Erdogan, Noor Fitri was aboard on the Mavi Marmara. After being detained by the Israeli forces, she was finally set free to return to her own country. Upon arriving to Indonesia, she founded Adara Relief International, which is an organization that seeks to help those that have been affected by war, conflict and natural disasters.

Upon receiving her award, after thanking the Al-Quds Platform and the Turkish presidency for their support to the Palestinian cause, Fitri remembered the martyrs of Mavi Marmara and said, “I take this award for my brothers that were martyred on Mavi Marmara.”

Benjamin Ladraa

Benjamin Ladraa received his award from leader of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mevlut Uysal. A young activist from Sweeden, Ladraa has drawn attention to the human rights abuses and the Israeli occupation with his steps. Having set off his journey in August 2017, Ladraa has walked through 11 countries and got to Turkey in March 2018.

Explaining the reasoning behind his particular method of resistance, Ladraa stated that “every step taken is important.” During his speech at the awards evening Ladraa emphasized how walking has allowed him to meet new people and to explain the situation in Palestine. His end aim is to go to Northern Cyprus and take a boat to Palestine – not knowing whether he will be granted entry by the Israeli forces.

Naji al-Ali

Naji al-Ali, forced to leave Palestine, and well known for his famous cartoon ‘Hanzala’ was assassinated by the Israeli secret service, Mossad, in 1987.

Hanzala was a cartoon depicting a young boy aged 10, who always had his back to the viewer, reflecting how the world has remained silent to the issues in Palestine.

Describing Hanzala, Naji al-Ali once wrote: “Hanzala was born at the age of ten and will always remain ten. At that age I left my country and only when Hanzala returns to Palestine will he grow up and exceed the age of ten. The rules of nature do not apply on him. He is an exception and things will only be natural in his case when he returns to Palestine. The child is a symbolic representation of myself and the group who lives and endures the situation we are all in. I offered him to the readers and called him Hanzala as a symbol of bitterness. In the beginning I offered him as a Palestinian child and with the development of his awareness he had a patriotic and a human outlook.”

Zionism and settler colonialism

The late prominent scholar of settler colonialism, Patrick Wolfe, reminded us repeatedly that settler colonialism is not an event, it is a structure. By that he meant that although settler colonialism in many cases has a historical starting point, its original motivation still guides its maintenance in the present. Settler colonial projects, by and large, were motivated by what Wolfe defined as ‘the logic of the elimination of the native.’ This logic guided settler colonial projects once the settler community of Europeans, who fled the continent due to religious or cultural persecution, chose as their safe haven countries where other indigenous people lived.

The wish of settlers to create a new home, indeed a new homeland, clashed almost inevitably with the aspirations of the local native population. In some cases, the ‘logic of the elimination of the native’ as the main response to this clash indeed ended in physical elimination of the native – as can be seen from the genocides of the native Americans in north, central and south America and that of the aboriginals in Australia.  In others, the clash was solved by other means. In South Africa, for instance, the settlers enclaved the indigenous population in closed areas and later on imposed an Apartheid system on them.

There was another common feature to settler colonial movements – the European settlers needed the help of an Empire for the initial colonization but later developed their own agenda and collective identity that led them to rebel against that very Empire. This led to historical moments such as the American Revolution in 1776 and the Boer wars in South Africa in the late 19^th century.

The principal premise of this article is that Zionism in Palestine is a settler colonial project and Israel is still today a settler colonial state. This depiction is now widely accepted in the scholarly world, but of course rejected by mainstream Israeli scholars. It is from within this perspective that I would like to revisit the Balfour declaration and ponder its significance today.

On November 2, 1917, Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, sent a letter to Lionel Rothschild, who was the nominal head of the Anglo-Jewish community. In the letter, the British government endorsed the idea of a ‘national home for the Jewish people,’ promising to do this without ‘prejudicing’ the ‘civil and religious rights’ of the ‘non-Jewish communities in Palestine.’

If one was unaware of the demographic, cultural and political realities in Palestine at the time, the letter sent would have you think that Jews were the native and majority population of Palestine, living next to small non-Jewish groups. The reality was very different. The Jews all in all were ten percent of the population and quite a few of them in 1917 regarded themselves as Arabs and not part of a new Jewish nation.

This misrepresentation of the Palestine reality in the Balfour Declaration is the first indication of how applicable the settler colonial paradigm is to the case of the Zionist movement in Palestine. The settler movement obtained the support of a colonial and imperial power, one which it would disown from 1942 onwards, and shared with the Empire the perception of the local population at best as a tolerated minority, and at worst as usurpers who took over land that had belonged to the settlers. The imperial power, in this case Britain, granted the international legitimacy for this act of colonization and sowed the seeds for the future dispossession of the native population.

The origins of the declaration

Most historians explain the Balfour Declaration in terms of British strategic thinking. It was part of an attempt to prevent a Muslim holy land as well as an apprehension that some other European powers might support Zionism. The Israeli scholar, Mayer Verete, whose very old article on the topic is still one of the best, highlighted also the misconception British policy makers had about the possible power Jews had both in the Bolshevik movement and the United States; asserting wrongly that the support for Zionism would satisfy these two Jewish communities and turn them into potential British allies in the future (Bolshevism had nothing do with Zionism and it took a while before American Jewry became a factor in American policy towards Palestine).

What Verte missed can be complemented by applying the settler colonial paradigm to his and others’ more recent comprehensive analysis of the origins of the Balfour declaration. The British support for making a Jewish homeland in Palestine had its roots in evangelical Christian Zionist dogma mushrooming on both sides of the Atlantic already in the early 19^th century. Long before the Balfour Declaration, Christian settler colonialism penetrated North America and Africa, deeming these two continents as the new Zion and the holy land – these projects, like Zionism, relied first on British Imperialism and then rebelled against it. More importantly, the British branch of Christian Zionism focused more closely on the religious significance of a Jewish ‘return’ to Palestine. This ‘return’ in ecclesiastical terms was a precursor to the resurrection of the dead and the second coming of the Messiah. These millenarian ideologies were taken seriously and influenced important British politicians at the time of the Balfour Declaration, among them the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George.

Even before that in the mid-nineteenth century British consuls on the ground in Palestine, such as James Finn, associated this end of time scenario not only with the return of Jesus but also with the conversion of Jews to Christianity. Finn opened an office in Jerusalem for the conversion of Jews to Christianity and helped Jews to immigrate to Palestine long before the first Zionist settler arrived there.

Thus, the settler colonial paradigm highlights the theological connection between Christian elements in Britain and Zionism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the parallels between settler colonial projects supported by Britain in other parts of the world.

These obvious and more hidden connections between the Empire, other settler colonial projects and Zionism became even clearer in the years that followed the Balfour Declaration. While at the time the letter was not considered to be of immense importance, it became a crucial factor in the history of the country when it was integrated into the mandatory charter the League of Nations granted Britain over Palestine. Moreover, its importance was enhanced by the appointment of Herbert Samuel, a pro-Zionist Anglo-Jew as the first High Commissioner of Palestine.  Immediately upon his arrival to Palestine in 1920, Samuel put in place polices that allowed the settler colonial movement to bring in more settlers and to expand its foothold in the country by purchasing land mainly from absentee landlords.

The Palestinian national movement was organized enough to resist the settler colonial project in Palestine by popular and violent means. In the early years the vulnerable Jewish colony was saved and protected by the British army. The British were particularly important during the most significant Palestinian attempt to shake off the pro-Zionist British policy in 1936. For three years, Palestinian guerrillas waged a revolt against this policy. It was brutally crashed with all the might the British Empire could master. This resulted in the destruction of the Palestinian military and political elite: many of its members were either killed, wounded or expelled. This left Palestinian society defenseless and leaderless when it was needed most in 1948.

The Balfour Declaration and the Nakba

There is a direct line connecting the vague British promise given to the Zionist movement one hundred years ago and the catastrophe that befell the Palestinian people in 1948. Few British policy makers must have felt that they were wrong in giving the declaration and developed second thoughts about its validity. At times, as in 1930, they even pondered the repudiation of the Balfour Declaration but retracted quickly from such a dramatic U-turn. In 1939, the British policy makers tried to restrict Jewish immigration and purchase of land, but were castigated later for this policy due to the rise of Nazism and Fascism which turned Palestine to one of the few safe havens for Jews escaping from Europe. This condemnation one should say came from a hypocritical western world that did very little to save the Jews during the Holocaust or open its gates to its survivors immediately after the war. The British had to accept an international verdict that the Jews of Europe should be compensated by allowing the Zionist movement to further colonize Palestine. They also became the enemies of the Zionist movement, as happened in the case of the American and South African settlers respectively, Zionism began its war of independence against the British Empire.

These pressures, together with the transformation of Britain from a world power to second grade actor on the international scene, led to its decision in February 1947 to refer the question of Palestine to the United Nations. Britain was still responsible for law and order between February 1947 – May 1948 and within this responsibility it witnessed, remained indifferent and at times, an accomplice to the final and disastrous outcome of the Balfour Declaration: the 1948 ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

The British decision promoted the military and political leadership of the Jewish community to devise their own version of ‘the logic of the elimination of the native.’ While conducting an effective diplomatic effort to obtain international legitimacy for the idea of a Jewish State (even at the price, as transpired later on, that such legitimacy would be granted to only part of Palestine), this leadership also contemplated the removal of the Palestinian community from any part which would form the future Jewish State.

It was during the beginning of March 1948 that this leadership produced Plan D, or Plan Dalet. In my view and that of many other historians, although there is also a view that challenges our interpretation, this was a clear blueprint for the systematic removal of the Palestinians from Palestine. The Plan itself, which was a document of several pages was less important by itself – it significance lay in the way it was translated into a set of operative commands that were dispatched to the Jewish forces in March, April and May 1948. The essence of these orders was to occupy villages, towns and neighborhoods, expel their people and in the case of the villages detonate the houses so as to prevent any return.

The British were already retreating from some parts of Palestine when this ethnic cleansing commenced. However, they were present in the urban space of Palestine and it was there that the main ethnic cleansing effort took place. They were present when Palestinians were expelled from Haifa, Jaffa and Acre, all together more than 100,000 people. They watched and mediated in order to facilitate the transfer (as in the case of Haifa) but did not intervene when the people who began to leave under an agreement were shelled by the Jewish forces while proceeding to the harbor. This was a shameful chapter that even some British politicians at the time recognized but the British government in general did not show much regret. It was as shameful as the declaration itself. When the ethnic cleansing ended, half of Palestine’s population was expelled, half of its villages demolished and most of its towns were depopulated. On their ruins, Israel built Kibbutzim, development towns and planted European pine trees in order to try and erase the Arab nature of Palestine.

Britain was quick to recognize the Jewish state and contributed further to the Palestinian disaster by supporting the partition of post-mandatory Palestine between Jordan and Israel. The Israeli-Jordanian understanding about this arrangement was concluded before the 1948 war and implemented with the help of the senior officers of the Jordanian army – all of which were British. This was a non-written understanding of the gist of which accorded to Jordan, without a fight, the West Bank. In return, the Jordanian army, the best trained and effective in the Arab world, played only a limited role in the 1948 fighting.

The British government in London was fully aware of this understanding and supported it. Moreover, the British did all they could to prevent the making of a Palestinian state even part of Palestine. They called such a state a Mufti State, namely one headed by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem whom they accused of collaborating with the Nazis in the Second World War. Thus, adding 20 percent of Palestine to Jordan and recognizing the Jewish state, stretching over 78 percent of the country (2 percent was the Egyptian controlled Gaza Strip), completed the ruination of Palestine which became the inevitable consequence of the Balfour Declaration.

However, the settler colonial project of Zionism is not as successful as the American or the Australian one and may still have a similar ending to the one in South Africa. It is too early to tell, but what is clear is that through this prism one can understand better why there is a conflict between Israel and Palestine and what, at least in principle, should be the way forward for solving it.

The White House said that President Trump will announce that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and that the US Embassy in Tel Aviv will be moved to Jerusalem.

According to Anadolu Agency three senior White House officials whose names were not disclosed evaluated Trump’s current Jerusalem accounts for the press via teleconference on Tuesday.

The President is expected to announce that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and is expected explain to the Department of State that he will instruct the US embassy in Tel Aviv to begin preparations for the relocation to Jerusalem.

However the relocation of the US embassy is likely to take years because to find a site, address security concerns, design, fund and finally build a new facility is not an instantaneous process.

White House Spokeswoman Sarah Sanders announced that Trump will announce his decision on the move of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on Wednesday (December 6, 2017). President Trump is expected to make his announcement at 1 p.m. in Washington.

One official stressed that certain regions in East Jerusalem are still considered “occupied Palestinian territories” and that “this decision of the President does not suggest a change in the judicial issues in question.” Claiming that the President’s decision is not going to influence the boundaries of sovereignty, he added that these issues are in the domain of the negotiation process.

Trump recently had phone calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan’s King Abdullah, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al Sisi, and King Salman of Saudi Arabia to discuss potential decisions regarding Jerusalem.

Netanyahu has remained silent and in his first public appearance after the Jerusalem dispute, Netanyahu outlined Israel’s economic strengths and international outreach in a conference, emphasizing the importance of ties with the United States but refrained from making any statements about Trump’s Jerusalem announcement.

US objectives remain unclear

Although Trump’s announcement was not unexpected since his presidential campaign last year, it has prompted a wave of negative reactions from governments and political groups throughout the world.

The question mainly asked is why the US is dealing with this question at this particular moment and why Trump went against the “tradition” of his precedes in delaying such a controversial dispute by signing waivers every 6 months.

Although the senior Trump administration officials say that Trump’s decision is not intended to favor Israel and that a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians will be essential on the final status of Jerusalem, it is perceived differently by the international community.

Although the direct political benefits for Trump administration are unclear, the decision is pleasing for Republican conservatives and evangelical Christians, a large portion of Trump’s political base.

Analysts suppose that Trump needs all support he can get and accordingly tries to please the Israeli lobby in the US.

While assuring the inner support for Trump, the decision is conflicting with Trump’s so called desire for a more stable Middle East and Israel-Palestinian peace.

To move the US embassy to Jerusalem – while there are no other embassies – set off alarm bells around the Middle East and the Muslim world, raising the prospect of violence.

Biased resolution in the US House of Representatives

Amid all developments the US House of Representatives voted to reduce the annual $300 million US aid to the Palestinian authority unless it takes some necessary measures according to Reuters.

The measure plans to prevent the Palestinian authorities from paying “martyr payments” to the families of Palestinians killed or jailed by the Israeli authorities – payments which can reach $3,500 per month.

Before the vote, Republican Representative Ed Royce claimed that the rewards get greater the longer the jail sentence is or the more brutal the act of killing is.

The measure, which will become law once it is passed by the US Senate and signed by President Trump, again raised questions about the timing while another big discussion is still to be concluded about the final status of Jerusalem.

World reacts

Although the EU, Turkey and the Arab World are full of disagreement on various issues, the US announcement to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has brought them together on the same ground.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s words “Jerusalem is a red line for Muslims,” summoned up the general opinion for the whole Muslim world on a decision unacceptable for Muslims.

“While the wounds of the Palestinian people continue to bleed and every day there are violations of rights and oppressions, such a decision to support Israel is not only a violation of international law, but also a severe disgrace to humanity,” he said.

Questioning the timing of these declarations while more important issues such as the war in Syria and the fight against Daesh is still continuing, President Erdogan warned that ignoring the “inviolability” of Jerusalem for Muslims would lead to “serious consequences” – leading to the break of relations between Turkey and Israel.

Erdogan’s strict position was appreciated by Hamas.

Abu Zuhri, senior spokesman for the Hamas told Anadolu Agency, “This unique position of the Turkish authorities and noble Turkish people is a reflection of the leadership and its support of the cause of the Palestinian people.”

While Erdogan’s comments regarding Jerusalem’s importance for the Muslim world have been applauded on a broad spectrum, Israeli ministers have sincerely personalized the issue.

Israel’s Education Minister Naftali Bennet responded to Erdogan by saying “Erdogan does not miss an opportunity to attack Israel. Israel will advance its goals, including the recognition of united Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital for three thousand years, it was never and will never be the capital of anyone else.”

“There is always going to be someone to criticize but at the end of the day it’s better to have a united Jerusalem than Erdogan’s sympathy,” Bennett added.

Interestingly, Bennet’s comments were solely focused on the reaction from Turkey – with no reference to various outcries the US decision caused across the world.

Prime Minister of Turkey Binali Yildirim stated that US’ decision would be an unlawful one, and will put the problems in the region into an incomprehensible stage.

Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu made a statement after meeting US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in Brussels. The Turkish FM stated, “It would be a big mistake to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, the whole world is against it”.

Palestinian groups, including Hamas and Fatah, have issued a joint statement calling on the Palestinian people to “gather in front of the city centers, the US Consulates and embassies” and react to the US plan.

In explanations, the young people from the Intifada in the West Bank were urged to respond to the US plan through possible means.

The Arab Parliamentarians’ Executive Committee described the plan as invalid, “This initiative removes the possibility of peace altogether by violating the rights of the Palestinian people who are registered with international law.”

Saudi King Salman emphasized that Saudi Arabia is in support of Palestinians and their historical rights.

Pointing out the importance of the region and Masjid al-Aqsa as the first sacred place, he warned Trump that any change in Jerusalem’s status would harm peace negotiations and increase tensions in the region.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, while still being in an unresolved dispute with the Saudis, made clear that Tehran is against the plan of the US, coming to mutual grounds with its foe.

Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union External Relations and Security Policy, stressed the importance of the peace process between Israel and Palestine suggested that for the fulfillment of all parties expectations Jerusalem should be the capital of both states.

Similar statements have been made by various other states such as France, Germany, Russia, and even by Pope Francis – all underlining that such a decision would undermine peace efforts and potentially evoke protests in the whole region.

Accordingly the White House urged all the US embassies in largely Muslim populated countries to take precautions for protests and unrests in addition the US Consulate General in Jerusalem warned Americans to avoid “areas where crowds have gathered and where there is an increased police and/or military presence.”

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan. 

In the past weeks, President Donald Trump was reported to be considering recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

However according to the White House President Trump postponed the announcement of the embassy and will –  while he signs a waiver to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv for another six months – announce Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – a move long awaited by Israel.

Jerusalem is claimed by Israel as its seat of government. But since the international community sees it as an issue to be settled as part of a broader peace agreement, no foreign embassies are located in Jerusalem.

The announcement which was expected to be made this week followed the debates that started with first statements after Trump’s meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the presidential elections, and grew particularly intense in recent days.

A move by Trump to recognize Jerusalem will not only anger Palestinians but the broader Muslim world as well.

It is likely to completely halter the effort to restart long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, while pleasing Israel and satisfying the pro-Israel base that supported him on his way to presidency.

Palestine’s Response

Amid the recent reports of Trump’s consideration, Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas met with a delegation from the Democracy Front for Equality and Peace in Ramallah.

President Abbas warned the US that such a move would jeopardize the future of political process in the region and is unacceptable for Palestine as well as other Arab countries.

“Any step that the US takes to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would endanger the future of the political process,” he said during the meeting.

Hamas’ political chief Ismail Haniyeh also called for the unity among Palestinian groups against US’ move that was described as “very risky”.

Palestine’s official news agency WAFA reported on Sunday that the Palestinian leader has also spoken to many world leaders and sent statements to the African Union, the Arab League, Organization of Islamic Cooperation as well as the UN, the US, Russia, and the EU about the prevention of US’ plan to relocate its embassy in Israel which would “ax the peace process.”

Trump’s campaign pledge on Jerusalem last year

Trump had first pledged to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s “undivided capital” once he was elected, after his private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just before his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.

“Trump acknowledged that Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish people for over 3,000 years, and that the US, under a Trump administration, will finally accept the long-standing congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the state of Israel,” his campaign office said in a statement.

With no reference to the pledge by Trump, a statement released by Netanyahu’s office read: “Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed with Mr. Trump issues relating to Israel’s security and its efforts to achieve stability and peace in the Middle East.”

When Israel captured the Arab eastern half of Jerusalem during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed it in 1980, it declared all of Jerusalem Israel’s unified capital.

Israel’s move was not recognized internationally – by states such as the United States and most other United Nations member countries.

Therefore, Jerusalem’s final status continues to be a key issue to be resolved in peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton in 1995, the US Congress passed a law calling for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the authorization of moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

But no US president, Democrat or Republican, has implemented the law – insisting that it is a matter that must be decided in peace negotiations between the countries.

Instead, since 1998 every president has signed a waiver every six months in the name of national security upon seeing the complexity of the situation; so did Trump back in June.

Outcomes of a possible decision

Trump seems to have understood why his predecessors have signed waivers every six months instead of making the radical step of relocating the US embassy, a controversial step since the eastern part of the city is Palestinian territory being illegally occupied by Israel.

Jerusalem has remained at the core of the Israel-Palestine conflict for decades, as Palestinians want Israeli-occupied East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state and Israel’s claim on all of the city is not recognized by the international community.

However, even the decision to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital without ordering an embassy move, is expected to spark an international uproar especially in the Muslim world.

The president is surely aware of the damage to US relations with Muslim countries after a possible declaration.

The opposition against such a move has been loudest among the Arab leaders; some accusing the US President of “playing with fire” and Arab League Secretary-General Ahmed Aboul Gheit saying it will fuel “extremism.”

According to Reuters news agency, Jordan has begun consultations on convening an emergency meeting of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation before the US President’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Jordan is expected to invite members of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to “discuss ways of dealing with the consequences of such a decision that raised alarm and concern.”

*Written by Suna Nur Sarihan.