Bolivia: The Struggle For Democracy Is Not Over

January 31, 2020

U.S Peace Council Statement:

In early January 2020, the Trump Administration’s assassination of a top Iranian general in Baghdad, Iraq brought the US and Iran to the brink of a major war. Understandably, that crisis shoved many other crises to the sidelines.

Accordingly, Bolivia is not now in the headlines. But even at the start of events on November 10, 2019, there was confusion in the headlines about what was happening in Bolivia. Compounding the confusion, some “progressive” and “alternative” media outlets were slow to acknowledge that a coup had begun. The coup regime's racist violence towards Evo Morales” protesting Indigenous supporters was hardly given adequate coverage anywhere. In the US corporate media support for the coup took the form of denying it was happening at all, thereby disorienting the peace movement response.

Evo Morales, in office 2006-2019, was the first Indigenous president of Bolivia, a country with an Indigenous majority. Under the 14 years of rule by his Movement for Socialism party (MAS), Bolivia had one of the highest economic growth rates in the hemisphere. The country slashed poverty dramatically. Bolivia became a trailblazer for the rights of the Indigenous and poor, aligning itself with the progressive governments of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.*

Morales was re-elected president on October 20, 2019. Because of the US-backed candidate lost, the US government called Morales’ election “fraudulent.” A US-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) disseminated misleading information on the validity of the election. Thus, the stage was set for the November 10 coup, when Morales was forced to resign under duress by the military.

Key figures behind the coup had allies in Washington. The OAS Secretary General embraced coup leader Luis Fernando Camacho. The coup was endorsed by the right-wing neighboring countries (Chile, Brazil). President Trump “applauded” the Bolivian military despite its well documented systematic violations of human rights. Evo Morales is now in exile in Argentina and the Indigenous continue to protest in the face of lethal, racist repression. An example of the racism: the self-proclaimed President Jeanine Áñez has smeared Indigenous communities’ religious beliefs as “satanic.” At this writing, Morales, the MAS, and most of the popular parties and movements have agreed to new elections but efforts are underway by backers of the de facto government to disqualify the MAS from participating in an eventual election.

Several prominent US peace organizations were first out of the gate in condemning the coup. CODEPINK on Nov 19, 2019, challenging the mainstream media narrative, emphasized the coup was indeed a coup. CODEPINK highlighted the need for international monitoring. It demanded that the UN’s Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights chief Michelle Bachelet join CODEPINK’s Medea Benjamin in Bolivia.

Veterans for Peace on Nov. 21 stressed US complicity in the coup, and the coup’s racist nature.

There has been a limited response from the UN. As early as Nov. 16, 2019 “the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet “urged the authorities to ensure that security forces comply with international norms and standards on the use of force and guarantee the right to life and the physical integrity of protesters.”

Since then the toll of repression has risen. Recent and reliable accounts state that more than 30 have been killed and 600 injured in protests against the coup government.

What are the demands that the US solidarity and peace movements should raise now?

The best chance of peacefully restoring lawful government and majority rule in Bolivia is the projected May 3, 2020 elections, but at the rate things are going the elections will be rigged. USAID, which financed anti-Morales opposition groups in Bolivia for years is returning to Bolivia at the invitation of Jeanine Añez’s coup government allegedly to “monitor” — in reality to manipulate and corrupt — the forthcoming elections.

The coup is not consolidated, witness the strenuous efforts of the coup government to fix the forthcoming elections.

We call upon all peace and solidarity organizations in the US to:

• Put Bolivia back on the front burner as a campaigning issue between now and the May 3, 2020 elections.
• Sign the CODEPINK Petition on Bolivia demanding that the chief of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, visit Bolivia in person. There should be a powerful, institutional UN Office of Human Rights presence on the ground in Bolivia. It will serve as a restraint on the coup government.
• Demand a Congressional investigation to find out exactly to what extent the US was involved in the coup.
• Organize full international monitoring of the May 2020 elections by independent experts and groups.
• Oppose USAID and kindred NGO funding of election manipulation, including purges of Indigenous voter rolls. Voter suppression is already underway and it must be exposed, condemned, and stopped

Demand that police and army violence against Indigenous protestors and the medical professionals who care for them come to a halt. After September 11, 1973, when the Allende government in Chile was overthrown in a US-supported coup, our peace, and solidarity movement and its allies launched years of campaigning to restore democracy in Chile and end the bloody rule of Pinochet. We must do no less for Bolivian democracy today.

_________________

* Roger D. Harris, 2019 Latin America in Review, Council on Hemispheric Relations.

NO HAY PROYECTO NACIONAL

Cada vez es más evidente que el triunfo de Andrés Manuel López Obrador en las elecciones presidenciales del 2018 no constituyó el triunfo de un Proyecto Nacional para que la mayoría del pueblo de México dejara de ser explotado por una minoría rapaz y corrupta, aliada al crimen organizado y a la potencia hegemónica.

Con el paso de los meses se ha hecho evidente que el triunfo de López Obrador fue el suyo, no el de un movimiento que aglutinara a numerosas fuerzas sociales capaces de transformar de fondo al país.

Lo único que se logró fue que la desesperación y el hartazgo social, finalmente se expresara en las urnas, pero sin un proyecto consensuado entre clases trabajadoras, medias, intelectuales, pequeños y medianos empresarios e incluso sectores de las fuerzas armadas y de seguridad.

Todo fue un ejercicio de coyuntura, realizado por pequeños grupos de allegados al entonces candidato presidencial López Obrador, que trazaron líneas generales y buenas intenciones en un proyecto presentado para el consumo electoral; pero que, una vez llegado al poder el candidato, ha dejado de lado y ha gobernado de acuerdo a su única y específica visión del país.

¿Y cuál es esa visión? Ya lo hemos dicho muchas veces en este blog, su modelo es el México de 1952-58, el sexenio de Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, cuando el régimen del Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) alcanzó su clímax, con un crecimiento económico del 6% anual (el “desarrollo estabilizador”), con el completo dominio del PRI en los tres órdenes de gobierno; con una presidencia omnipotente y con una relación más o menos tersa y cooperativa con Estados Unidos (a pesar de la famosa “operación Wetback” de 1954, mediante la cual el gobierno de Eisenhower expulsó de Estados Unidos a un millón de indocumentados, la gran mayoría de ellos, mexicanos).  Con una paz social aplicada a rajatabla de ser necesario (represión a maestros y ferrocarrileros); y el establecimiento del “tapadismo” mediante el cual Ruiz Cortines pudo manejar a su conveniencia las ambiciones de los aspirantes a presidente, sin tener que enfrentar las disputas abiertas, como sucedieron con el “henriquismo” en la sucesión anterior.

López Obrador cree poder recrear ese sistema, con un presidente fuerte, con dominio sobre el Congreso y el Poder Judicial, con la mayoría de los gobernadores subordinados a sus directrices, un proyecto económico basado en grandes obras públicas y en la producción petrolera; una oposición política débil y dividida y una política social destinada a vincular orgánicamente a las masas con el gobierno, mediante generosos programas sociales.

El problema es que para lograr eso requeriría regresarle al gobierno todos los instrumentos de política económica que tenía entonces (principalmente la política monetaria, a través del Banco de México); eliminar la aplastante y abrumadora presencia de la economía internacional en la del país, a través de la casi absoluta dependencia de México respecto a Estados Unidos; eliminar por completo a los organismos autónomos que se fueron creando durante los gobiernos neoliberales, como el Instituto Nacional Electoral, la Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, el Instituto Nacional de Acceso a la Información, la Comisión Federal de Competencia, etc.

Y tendría que contar con una organización política corporativa como la tuvo el PRI en esa época con los sectores obrero, campesino y popular; y un aparato de seguridad encargado de aplicar la represión a diferentes escalas, cuando el sistema lo requiriera.

Nada de eso tiene López Obrador, y por lo tanto está tratando de forzar cambios legislativos y políticos que lo aproximen a ese modelo, lo que lo confronta inevitablemente con los poderes fácticos que fueron los beneficiarios de los gobiernos neoliberales; y crecientemente con ciertas bases sociales, principalmente de izquierda, que están reconociendo en ese tipo de políticas, la reedición del autoritarismo y la imposición de los gobiernos priistas y también panistas de antaño.

Pero López Obrador está decidido a seguir adelante con sus políticas, que en conjunto no constituyen un proyecto viable y coherente para la nación.

Lo peor de todo es que para lograrlo, está dispuesto a ceder ante actores poderosos que coyunturalmente aparentan favorecer esas políticas, como el gran empresariado nacional, en el que nuevamente está poniendo sus esperanzas para que invierta en sus proyectos de obra pública, lo que bien puede resultar en serios enfrentamientos con poblaciones rurales e indígenas que se oponen a los mismos; y nuevamente en la concesión de grandes presupuestos a grupos empresariales que sólo explotarán la oportunidad a su favor, sin comprometerse a impulsar un verdadero proyecto de desarrollo social, comunitario y de vida digna para los habitantes de las zonas en donde se realizarán dichas obras.

Aún más preocupante resultan las enormes concesiones, que llegan ya al escándalo, que López Obrador ha hecho al gobierno de Estados Unidos en materia de política migratoria, de seguridad y comercial, lo que prácticamente ha convertido a México en un protectorado estadounidense, con lo que la soberanía nacional ha quedado quizás mortalmente herida. Pero una y otra vez, el presidente de México se niega a reconocer esto e insiste en que es mejor “llevarse bien” con Estados Unidos, como si ceder todo a cambio de nada implicara que el país estará mejor. Cualquiera que sea el gobierno que siga a López Obrador se encontrará que no podrá hacer prácticamente nada sin el visto bueno y la conformidad estadounidense, a riesgo de sufrir amenazas y sanciones de todo tipo. Es uno de los legados más trágicos que esta administración está legando a los mexicanos de las siguientes generaciones.

Y qué decir de la inoperancia de las instituciones encargadas de enfrentar la creciente inseguridad. Es la misma estrategia de militarizar, ahora mediante la Guardia Nacional, el combate al crimen organizado. Es cierto que el gobierno insiste en que las causas profundas como la falta de oportunidades para los jóvenes, los campesinos y en general la población más desfavorecida, es lo que permite la permanencia y el crecimiento del crimen organizado, así como la colusión de autoridades con este último. Pero hasta el momento, no se ha propuesto una estrategia integral que ataque las causas y las consecuencias de la inseguridad, la violencia y la impunidad. Son políticas aisladas, sin que se perciba un plan general para ir reduciendo, no sólo controlando, la violencia y la inseguridad en el país.

Desgraciadamente si esta desarticulación de políticas y decisiones se mantiene, lo que va a suceder va a ser un aumento de la frustración de la población, al no ver resultados concretos para resolver los principales problemas del país, y eso va a abrir la puerta para que el gobierno comience a tomar medidas desesperadas que empeoren las cosas, con lo que los neoliberales y la derecha política del país podrán presentarse como los “salvadores” mediante un regreso a las políticas del pasado reciente (al estilo Macri en Argentina), que seguramente hundirán todavía más a México en la miseria, la violencia y la subordinación a los Estados Unidos.

Trump Just Signed the U.S.M.C.A. Here’s What’s in the New NAFTA.

A trade agreement with Mexico and Canada revises Mexico’s labor laws and encourages more auto production in North America.

By Ana Swanson and Jim Tankersley

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/29/business/economy/usmca-deal.html

Trade Agreement into law on Wednesday, fulfilling a campaign promise to rewrite “one of the worst trade deals” in history.

“Today we are finally ending the NAFTA nightmare,” Mr. Trump said during a White House signing ceremony, calling the new trade deal a “colossal victory” for farmers, factory workers and other countries.

Much of the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement simply updates the 25-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, with new laws on intellectual property protection, the internet, investment, state-owned enterprises, and currency.

But the 2,082-page pact also includes significant changes in several key areas, including incentives to make cars in North America and open Canadian markets for American dairy farmers.

It rolls back a special system of arbitration for corporations that have drawn bipartisan condemnation, and includes additional provisions designed to help identify and prevent labor violations, particularly in Mexico. Some of those changes were inserted at the insistence of Democrats, who used their control of the House to secure long-desired policy changes.

Here are highlights from the new U.S.M.C.A.

Steering more car production to the United States

NAFTA required automakers to produce 62.5 percent of a vehicle’s content in North America to qualify for zero tariffs. The new agreement raises that threshold, over time, to 75 percent. That’s meant to force automakers to source fewer parts for an “Assembled in Mexico” car from Germany, Japan, South Korea or China. The pact also requires 70 percent of a vehicle’s steel and aluminum to originate in North America, with steel being both melted and poured on the continent.

For the first time, the new agreement also mandates that 40 to 45 percent of the parts for any tariff-free vehicle must come from a so-called high-wage factory. Those factories must pay a minimum of $16 an hour in average salaries for production workers. That’s about triple the average wage in a Mexican factory right now, and administration officials hope the provision will either force automakers to buy more supplies from Canada or the United States or cause wages in Mexico to rise.

However, critics caution that factories may be able to game the rules by including some high-paid managers in their calculations. And there are risks to the changes.

Automotive analysts have warned that the wage provision could raise costs for American car companies and car buyers, slowing the auto market and weighing on economic growth overall.

The final provision, as written, could also prove relatively ineffective at shifting production, because it is not indexed to inflation. An average wage of $16 an hour will be less constraining in 2023 dollars than it is today.

Stronger labor rules in Mexico

The U.S.M.C.A. includes expansive changes that, at least on paper, should help level the playing field among workers in the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

NAFTA’s original provisions on labor and environment were added as side letters after the original agreement was signed, to win the support of Democrats and ensure the deal’s passage during the Clinton administration. The U.S.M.C.A. moves these chapters into the main body of the trade agreement, meaning issues like the right to organize are now subject to the pact’s normal procedures for settling disputes.

The deal also expands those commitments, requiring more protections for workers, blocking imports of goods made with forced labor, and setting up mechanisms to ensure that those rules are enforced.

In response to the concerns of congressional Democrats, it sets up an independent panel that can investigate factories accused of violating labor rights and stop shipments of that factory’s goods at the border. It establishes an interagency committee to monitor Mexico’s labor reforms, as well as American attachés who will report to Congress on the progress.

In an annex to the agreement, Mexico also committed to enacting sweeping legal changes to combat forced labor and violence against workers, and allow for independent unions and labor courts. The International Trade Commission has estimated that, if the changes are made, they will increase wages for Mexico’s unionized workers and decrease their pay gap with American workers.

Less protection for drug companies

In a major concession to Democrats, the Trump administration agreed to pare back certain protections for an advanced and very expensive class of drugs called biologics. The final agreement removes a provision that had offered the drugs 10 years of protection from cheaper alternatives in both Canada and Mexico.

The agreement expands other protections for intellectual property rights, for example, extending the 50 years of protection for copyrights in NAFTA to 70 years. It also includes new criminal penalties for theft of trade secrets, including cybertheft.

In a major win for tech firms, it gives internet companies like Facebook and YouTube certain protections from lawsuits related to the user content posted on their platforms. It also sets new standards by prohibiting governments from asking tech companies to disclose their source code or put duties on electronic transmissions.

Wins for American cheese (and wine)

The agreement gives American farmers some additional access to foreign markets, particularly in Canada. It does not dismantle Canada’s “supply management system,” which dictates how much Canadian farmers should produce so they can be profitable. But Canada did agree to eliminate a program that helps sellers of certain milk products, at home and abroad, and open its market to American milk, cream, butter, cheese, and other products. In return, the United States expanded access to its market for Canadian dairy and sugar.

It also creates a list of cheese names that Mexico and the United States agree can be marketed without restriction in their countries, and it forces grocery stores in British Columbia to stop their practice of selling British Columbia-only wines on certain shelves, and stock American wines alongside them.

Ending a special system of arbitration for companies

One of the biggest areas of contention stemmed from the mechanisms that companies and governments could turn to when they believed another party had violated NAFTA.

In a major change, the U.S.M.C.A. rolls back a special system of arbitration that allowed companies to sue governments for unfair treatment. The provision was criticized both by the Trump administration, which said it encouraged outsourcing, and by Democrats, who said it gave corporations too much power to challenge environmental and consumer regulations.

The system can no longer be used in disputes between the United States and Canada and is limited to disagreements between Mexico and the United States that involve a narrow range of industries, including petrochemicals, telecommunications, infrastructure and power generation.

Other systems for settling disputes between governments were basically maintained. The Trump administration ultimately gave up on an effort to eliminate the so-called Chapter 19 provision, which gives the three countries a neutral way to challenge one another’s tariffs and other actions. The administration also gave in to Democratic demands for removal of a provision that would have allowed any country to block a case against it from moving forward, if it so wished.

But the U.S.M.C.A. retains a more controversial addition by the Trump administration — a sunset clause that requires the three countries to review, after six years, whether to remain in the agreement. If any country decides not to continue with the pact, the U.S.M.C.A. will expire 16 years later.

Estados Unidos/Israel y los TPO: Funesto “acuerdo de paz” agravaría las violaciones del derecho internacional y consagraría la impunidad

28 enero 2020

https://www.amnesty.org/es/latest/news/2020/01/usa-israel-opt-dismal-peace-deal-will-exacerbate-violations/

El funesto conjunto de propuestas de la administración Trump, que violan el derecho internacional y despojan aún más de sus derechos a la población palestina, constituyen una guía para continuar con el sufrimiento y los abusos en Israel y los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados (TPO), ha manifestado Amnistía Internacional hoy.

La organización ha instado a la comunidad internacional a rechazar las medidas contrarias al derecho internacional que contiene el denominado “acuerdo del siglo” del presidente Donald Trump. Entre ellas figuran la extensión formal de la soberanía israelí al valle del Jordán y la gran mayoría de los asentamientos del resto de la Cisjordania ocupada a cambio de tierras que están actualmente dentro de Israel.

“Aunque la administración Trump ha destacado en el acuerdo el principio de intercambio de tierras, no nos equivoquemos: lo que propone es una mayor anexión de territorio palestino, que viola de manera flagrante el derecho internacional humanitario. Durante más de medio siglo de ocupación, Israel ha impuesto un sistema de discriminación institucionalizada de la población palestina bajo su gobierno, a la que niega derechos básicos y el acceso a recursos efectivos contra las violaciones del derecho internacional. El acuerdo supone aprobar estas políticas brutales e ilícitas”, ha manifestado Philip Luther, director de Investigación y Trabajo de Incidencia para Oriente Medio y Norte de África de Amnistía Internacional.

Los intercambios de tierra propuestos incluyen la transferencia potencial de zonas de Israel con un alto porcentaje de población palestina a un futuro Estado de Palestina. Esta propuesta suscita de por sí el temor de que los ciudadanos y ciudadanas palestinos de Israel en estas zonas queden marginados.

Amnistía Internacional pide a la comunidad internacional que rechace las propuestas de anexión, contrarias al derecho internacional, y reitere la ilegalidad de los asentamientos israelíes de los territorios ocupados. Tales propuestas no cambiarán las obligaciones jurídicas contraídas por Israel, como potencia ocupante, en virtud del derecho internacional humanitario, según las cuales no debe privar a la población palestina de la protección garantizada en estos marcos jurídicos.

El acuerdo contiene también la propuesta de crear un “mecanismo de indemnización” para las personas refugiadas palestinas, en vez de reconocer su derecho a regresar. Con más de 5,2 millones de personas registradas en la actualidad, la población refugiada palestina es una de las mayores del mundo. Los palestinos y palestinas que huyeron de sus hogares o fueron expulsados de ellos en 1948, así como sus descendientes, tienen derecho a regresar, según el derecho internacional. Se trata de un derecho humano personal, que no puede cederse por concesiones políticas.

“Centenares de miles de personas refugiadas palestinas se hallan atrapadas en campos superpoblados más de 70 años después de que sus padres y madres o abuelos y abuelas se vieran obligados a salir de sus hogares. Esta propuesta hace caso omiso de los derechos de las personas refugiadas según el derecho internacional y del sufrimiento que llevan decenios padeciendo”, ha añadido Phillip Luther.

Por último, con el acuerdo se intenta menoscabar la justicia internacional poco después del anuncio, el mes pasado, de avances en el inicio de una investigación de la Corte Penal Internacional sobre la situación en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados. Se insiste en él en que, durante las negociaciones, las autoridades palestinas no deben entablar «ninguna acción, y suspender todas las acciones pendientes, contra el Estado de Israel, Estados Unidos ni ninguno de sus ciudadanos y ciudadanas ante la Corte Penal Internacional, la Corte Internacional de Justicia ni ningún otro tribunal”.

En diciembre de 2019, la fiscal de la Corte Penal Internacional anunció que en un examen preliminar sobre Palestina se había determinado que se habían cometido crímenes de guerra en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados y que debía iniciarse una investigación una vez confirmada la competencia territorial de la Corte.

También se exige en el plan a las autoridades palestinas que no emprendan “ninguna acción contra ciudadanos israelíes ni estadounidenses ante Interpol ni ningún sistema legal que no sea israelí o estadounidense (según proceda)”. Esta exigencia es un intento manifiesto de impedir a los palestinos y palestinas buscar justicia en los tribunales nacionales de terceros países que apliquen la jurisdicción universal, instrumento esencial de la justicia internacional.

“Para lograr una paz justa y sostenible hace falta un plan que dé prioridad a los derechos humanos de las poblaciones palestina a israelí y que incluya justicia y reparación para las víctimas de crímenes de guerra y otras violaciones graves del derecho internacional. Este plan no sólo no cumple estos criterios fundamentales, sino que se pretende con él torpedear los esfuerzos que se están realizando en la actualidad para conseguir justicia para las poblaciones palestina e israelí”, ha añadido Phillip Luther.

Palestinians brace for the worst ahead of Trump’s ‘peace plan’

News 

Yumna Patel on January 27, 2020

https://mondoweiss.net/2020/01/palestinians-brace-for-the-worst-ahead-of-trumps-peace-plan/

The anticipation can be felt across the country as Palestinians and Israelis alike wait, some with hope and many with dread, for US President Donald Trump to reveal his “peace plan” for the region on Tuesday.

While the details of the long-awaited “Deal of the Century” have largely been left up to speculation, it is largely understood that the deal will be heavily pro-Israel.

While Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu described the US proposal as a once in a lifetime “opportunity” that Israel “cannot miss,” the impending release of the plan has sparked impassioned reactions by Palestinians.

Reports surfaced on Monday that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had refused a phone call with Trump, ahead of Trump’s meetings with Netanyahu and his rival Benny Gantz on Tuesday. 

The move was hailed by Palestinians across social media, who praised Abbas for sticking to his ongoing boycott of the Trump administration.

Palestinian leaders threatened to withdraw from the Oslo Accords, arguing that the Israeli acceptance of the deal — which allegedly supports Israel’s annexation of all West Bank settlements and the Jordan Valley — would make the 1994 deal null and void.

The “death of the two-state solution” could be seen across Palestinian media, with the Prime Minister Mahmoud Shtayyeh saying “it is nothing but a plan to finish off the Palestinian cause.”

Some leaders, like chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, floated the idea of a One-State solution, saying “it is an attempt to destroy the two states [solution]. But  it will open the doors of ‘one person one vote’ from the river Jordan to the Mediterranean.”

Ashraf al-Ajrami, the former minister of prisoner affairs for the PA defended Abbas’s refusal to speak to Trump on i24 News today. “This is an American-Israeli plan,” al-Ajrami said. It is intended to help Netanyahu win reelection and “help Donald Trump maybe to be elected or to use this opportunity maybe before he will fall” to help Israel.

The Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement called for intensifying boycott campaigns across the globe in response to the US plan.

“The plan Trump hatched with Israel’s far-right government aims to cement Israel’s apartheid rule over the Palestinian people,” the group said. “It is the final nail in the coffin of the moribund ‘peace process’, making #BDS the most effective response.”

On the ground, Palestinians across cities, villages and refugee camps in the occupied territory braced themselves for massive protests on Tuesday called for and supported by Palestinian political factions across the spectrum.

Hamas leader Ismail Haniya warned of a new wave of violence in reaction to the plan, saying it could usher in a “new phase” in the Palestinian struggle against Israel’s occupation.

The protests are expected to take on a life of their own, with locals predicting they could last into the coming weeks and months, much like the protests following Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in 2017.

Israeli media reported that the army was “preparing” for unrest by deploying extra troops across the West Bank in anticipation of Tuesday’s protests.

What to expect

Over the course of the past year, the release of Trump’s plan was delayed several times, mostly due to the tumultuous election cycle in Israel. The country will have its third election in a year on March 2.

With each delay came new leaks, mostly from Israeli media and officials, speculating as to the content of the plan. 

The US is expected to take a two-pronged approach to the plan — one economic, and one political. The economic part of the deal was unveiled in June, and promised US investments upwards of $50 billion in the Palestinian territories and neighboring Arab states over the course of 10 years.

The reception of the plan was lackluster, as many regional leaders hesitated to celebrate the promise of economic prosperity for Palestinians without seeing what political solutions the US had in store for them.

The culmination of months’ worth of leaks is a picture of a plan that is undoubtedly pro-Israel, conceding to the demands of the right-wing Israeli government without hesitation.

It is expected that the plan will accept Israel’s annexation of the Jordan valley and of hundreds of settlements across the West Bank — a move that has been widely condemned by the international community at large.

Some reports on Monday said that Trump would be unveiling maps showing the new borders of Israel, and a proposed “demilitarized” Palestinian state– a “state” whose borders would still be controlled by Israel.

The plan is expected to include a proposed bridge or tunnel connecting Gaza and the West Bank, and Israel’s potential withdrawal from parts of occupied East Jerusalem.

Yumna Patel

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss.

How Trump’s Israel-Palestine ‘Peace Plan’ Will Kill the Two-State Solution

JANUARY 24, 2020

Written by
Mitchell Plitnick

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/01/24/how-trumps-israel-palestine-peace-plan-will-kill-the-two-state-solution/

The “Deal of the Century,” the mythical agreement floated for most of Donald Trump’s first term in office, is on the table again. Earlier this month, Avi Berkowitz, Trump’s new envoy to the equally mythical “Middle East peace process,” made his first official trip to Israel, setting off another round of speculation that the plan might soon be unveiled.

Although National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien denied that Israel’s upcoming elections — the third in a year — had any bearing on Washington’s plans, no one was convinced. Now, both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main rival, Benny Gantz, former Chief of General Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces, have been invited to Washington for what is expected to be a discussion of the plan’s details.

No one believes the plan will yield peace or an agreement of any kind. But that doesn’t mean it won’t have an impact. In the short term, it has already created a political shock wave in Israel as elections loom in March. In the longer term, it has the potential to deal a devastating blow to hopes for stability and, more importantly, for Palestinian rights.

Gantz’s gambit, Netanyahu’s shell game

Knowing that the Trump deal was likely to include Israeli annexation of substantial parts of the West Bank, Gantz tried to pre-empt the political advantage this would give Netanyahu by announcing that, if elected, he would annex the strategic Jordan Valley. Netanyahu had already made such an announcement back in September, and Gantz’s Blue and White party cried foul, claiming that Netanyahu had stolen their plan.

The Jordan Valley is in Area C, which falls under full Israeli control, according to the Oslo Accords. For most of the Oslo period, Israel has quietly taken measures ranging from demolition of homes to various economic pressures to compel Palestinians to leave Area C, and much of the Palestinian population that remains in the Jordan Valley is in the city of Jericho and its environs. That area would, according to Netanyahu’s annexation plan, remain as a Palestinian enclave surrounded by the annexed territory.

Having already been outflanked by Netanyahu on annexation once, Gantz was determined not to let it happen again. He also saw an opportunity to poach some voters from other center-right parties. While many in the United States portray Blue and White as a “centrist” or even “left of center” alternative to Netanyahu, the coalition leans right of center. When it comes to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Blue and White has tried to cultivate an image of toughness, and has rarely opposed Netanyahu’s plans, positioning itself as Netanyahu’s Likud Party without the corruption at the top.

Polling has shown that annexation is popular with the Israeli public, as long as it is land that is annexed, not Palestinians. A plan like Netanyahu’s, where a key strategic area would be annexed with only a few thousand Palestinians at most being part of the deal, is even seen favorably by many who ostensibly support a two-state solution. For Gantz, then, he’s gambling that any votes his annexation announcement costs him would go to potential coalition partners like Labor, and would, in any case, be balanced by the votes he would gain.

Gantz is trying to find a way to tip the electoral balance in his favor. His posturing on annexation might move the needle a little, but he is risking losing the “support from the outside” that the non-Zionist and largely Palestinian Joint List gave him during the last round of elections. Without them, there is no way for Gantz to form a governing coalition.

Netanyahu also saw an opportunity in Gantz’s maneuver. He immediately challenged Gantz to support annexation in the Knesset, although there is nothing currently in the chamber to support. Next, he upped the ante by vowing to annex all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a challenge Gantz can’t possibly match. Finally, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, an ally of Netanyahu’s, made it clear when he announced the upcoming confab in Washington, that Netanyahu had initially been invited alone, but Netanyahu insisted that Gantz be brought on as well. Thus, the current prime minister paints himself as the statesman looking out for Israel’s interests no matter what the election results may be.

The future of annexation and the Trump peace plan

Gantz’s annexation statement included the proviso that any such step would be done “in coordination with the international community,” a curious addendum. The international community has been very clear that any changes to Israel’s international borders must be part of a permanent status agreement with the Palestinians. The only exception is the United States under the Trump administration, which seems poised to give its blessing to Israeli annexations, and perhaps even to the annexation of all settlements (which is likely to include the considerably greater territory that settlements control as part of their so-called regional councils).

Yet if he was trying to leave himself a back door, it wasn’t a very solid plan. As Netanyahu raises the stakes on this issue, the pressure will only grow for annexation. The Trump plan’s support for the idea will increase that pressure, so even if Gantz really did intend this to be a bluff that he could back out of by citing, for example, the objections of key European trading partners, relatively friendly Arab states, and possibly even Democratic members of Congress, the demand among the Israeli mainstream for the annexation of substantial parts of the West Bank is only going to grow.

That will make it very difficult for future presidents to reverse Trump’s position. European objections are unlikely to have much impact. With Trump’s support, the inevitable protests from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and other U.S. regional allies will be sharply worded but not followed upon. Trump will veto any United Nations action. The House of Representatives will likely pass some sort of resolution reaffirming its meaningless support for the now-academic “two-state solution” and the only constraint on annexation will be Israel’s own sense of how much opprobrium it wishes to face.

The constraints on Israel will be based on its own assessment of how various militant groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others will respond and how much support they will be able to get from Iran or other international players. Turkey and Qatar could play significant roles in any regional response, but neither is going to be eager for real confrontation with Israel and the U.S.

All of this will, no doubt, lend considerable energy to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, which, in turn, will escalate the fight in the U.S. over attempts to stifle free speech in order to prevent BDS from gaining traction. Denying that Israel is an apartheid state will be a logically untenable position.

Annexation represents Israel’s firm rejection, in practice, of a two-state solution. Reversing it, and promoting full, equal rights for Palestinian need not mean giving up a dream of two states. But it will mean that efforts to change the facts on the ground can no longer be limited by a two-state vision. Israel, by prioritizing annexation, will pre-empt that option for the foreseeable future, and those who wish to change U.S. policy as well as Israel’s will have to acknowledge that.