Deal of the Century in the International Law

Deal of the Century proposes a plan that gives a small portion of the West Bank to the Palestinians and strategizes to transfer the ownership of Jerusalem to Israel with a promise to create a new capital for Palestine from the remaining portion of land. The unusual part of the deal is how it attempts to bury the issue of the Palestinian refugees. Considering these abnormalities, the deal is bound to face illegalities that may justify the Arab rejection of the Deal. According to international laws, the deal appears to be illegal.

The deal contravenes Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 193, which call for Israel to withdraw from the Palestinian land occupied in 1967 as a way of enhancing the peace process between the two states.

Failure of Israel to withdraw from the contested land is an act of rebellion and neglect of the peace resolutions. Such act also denies the Palestinian refugees the right to self-determination as captured in the above resolutions.

To confirm the authenticity of such resolutions, both international and regional institutions support the Palestinian stand on this matter including the European Union, the Organization of Islamic Unity, the UN General Assembly and the Arab League.

With the entire team of security and intelligence advisers surrounding him, it is unimaginable that President Donald Trump does not relent in his quest to violate these international resolutions and laws.

It is clear from the contents of the deal that what Donald Trump wants is an open contravention of these resolutions for peaceful coexistence. President Trump supports the conspiracy to rob Palestine of its ancestral land and resources such as aquifers and gas by ganging up with Israel and other US sympathizers and Zionists for individual benefits.

By contravening the setout Security Council resolutions, he hopes to eliminate the enemies of the US such as Iran and terror groups by uniting the Arab countries against the organized terrorist sects.

Even though the final agenda is good, the means is unethical and provocative, especially if it entails demilitarizing Palestine and denying the citizens an opportunity to associate with their culture of worship in Jerusalem.

The Zionists and American extremists pushing for the unfair deal of the century also contravene the Oslo Agreement of 1993, which was promulgated by the United Nations.

The agreement provides for amicable and peaceful solutions to be obtained through the participation of all contesting parties around the table. The deal of the century as proposed by the United States through President Trump currently appears to be predetermined since most spokespersons of the US openly declare that the agreement is sealed with or without Palestine’s consent.

This position does not represent the intentions of the Oslo Agreement of 1993, making the deal illegal which accrues justifications for rejecting the deal on the basis of political and historical injustices, as well as contravention of international agreements.

Another contravention of international law is related to the right of the refugees to return to their ancestral land. Palestinians have lived as refugees both in Palestine and other countries as aliens, or second degree citizens.

Since the 1948, Palestinians have continued to move around countries including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Venezuela, and South Africa among others, increasing the refugee crisis in the affected jurisdictions. Even though most of these Palestinians live in different countries as refugees, they are protected by international laws that uphold the right to self-determination.

As such, it was unethical for the US through President Trump to withdraw US aid which funded education, operation, and treatment of Palestinian refugees in Gaza Strip. Such move was a scheme aimed at forcing Palestine to heed the call for buying the dubious dealings of the century based on coercion, which is illegal.

If implemented, the deal of the century could potentially cost the Palestinians billions of US dollars both in liquid cash and equivalent assets and resources. For instance, Israel hopes to possess about 61% of the West Bank land if the deal is implanted as it is. Furthermore, Israeli troops are expected to take up the better part of the defense jobs after demilitarizing Palestine leaving behind fewer employment opportunities for the natives.

Resources in the form of gas and water are also expected to be transferred to Israelis who would benefit entirely from the deal. All along, the US will be benefiting by normalizing relations with Arab countries while targeting its political enemies including organized terror groups. Even though the Palestinians would partly benefit from infrastructure promised in Gaza Strip and West Bank, such benefits would not be comparable to losing opportunities, land, and the symbol of their faith as portrayed by the presence of Jerusalem, the holy city.

It is irony for Jared Kushner, among other Zionists like Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, to play the role of drafting the deal as if Palestinians were nonexistent. Kushner and his counterparts had earlier boasted of having funded the illegal settlements of Israelis in the contested Palestinian territories.

Furthermore, Kushner is known to be President's Trump’s son-in-law who strives to push his father in law's agenda rather than ensure justice in the whole deal of the century. Kushner was also used to communicate that the role of Palestine in the deal was to implement and that their views were null and void.

Such an individual cannot be considered to facilitate the sealing of a deal of such weight. Palestine could have been allowed to produce an asset of its own to deliberate on the needs of the country without the perceived mischief propelled by Kushner and the team of Zionists.

By proposing the deal of the century, Israel hoped to obtain as much land as possible from the Palestinian refugees. Israel also hoped to rob Palestine of its sovereignty by demilitarizing its boundaries and taking charge of the mini-state.

By normalizing relations with all Arab countries, the US hoped to stand a chance to fight terrorism and retain superpowers. Even though these reasons may be valid, the means were unethical and illegal, making the entire deal of the century illegal in its entirety.