Deal of the Century or Trump’s imaginary peace plan in violation of international law

Although the root of Palestine’s problems is often traced back to the Balfour Declaration, yet the beginning of this problem can be traced to the post-World War-I in the “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, after collapse of the Ottoman Empire, that would divide the West Asian region and the territories under the influence of the Ottoman rule in such a way that the interests of the Europeans to be secured.
During this period, a part of land that we know as Palestine came under British rule, and it was after this incident that with the Balfour’s declaration the Jewish immigration to the land was approved and encouraged, thus creating the world’s great problem as a cancerous tumor.
Trump’s “peace deal” plan is certainly not a cure for this malignant cancer, and it will certainly exacerbate the problem, as much of the peace plan has been devoted to the occupation of the Palestinian territories; and the interests of the Palestinians have not been considered in it. It also contradicts Security Council resolutions as specific international law governing the status quo, including Resolution 2334, which explicitly condemns settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territories after 1967. We also have the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 2004, which criticized the construction of the retaining wall and the consequences of constructing this wall, and considered it as an example of violations of international law, including human rights and humanitarian law. In addition, from the point of view of general international law, it is a certain rule, which means that illegal possession cannot lead to the legitimacy of the occupation of the land.
At the same time, another issue can be raised, and that is the issue of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The principled position of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been from this perspective, in the sense that the Palestinian people have the right to decide on the Palestinian territories.
This deal, or the so-called one-sided plan, which does not take into account the views of the Palestinian people, does not in any way show respect for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
The annexation of land is also a violation of the right of national sovereignty of the Palestinian state, although the phrase “Palestinian state” may not be to the advantage of the Zionist occupiers and the United States, but this is a fact because the Palestinian state has been recognized by a large section of the international community as a state and has been a member of many international organizations and international treaties as a state and being accepted as a state overseer has been participating the United Nations. It can be said that during these years, the legal diplomacy of the Palestinians has led to the stabilization of the situation as a state. However, this is completely denied by the Americans.
On the other hand, the issue of recognizing the Israeli government is also a violation of international law, because the recognition of governments is voluntary and we cannot oblige another government to recognize an entity as a state.
The attempt to legitimize this occupation is a violation of human rights and humanitarian law, as it is contrary to Stimson’s doctrine. This doctrine has also found its place in international law today, and according to it, governments should not recognize the illegal situation and should not help maintain the illegal status.
In 2001, following this doctrine, the United Nations Commission on International Law proposed similar rules regarding the international liability of states, which are reflected in the draft of Article 40. According to this article, when a rule of law violates international law (which here is the right to self-determination and the prohibition of territorial acquisition through occupation and the use of force), other States are bound not to recognize the illegitimate situation resulting from the violation of the rule of international law; whereas Trump’s plan calls on all governments to recognize Israel’s occupation. Article 41 also calls on all countries not only not to cooperate in the continuation of that situation, but also to work together to end that illegitimate situation.
Another goal of Trump’s deal is to create commitment and cost to the Palestinians in order to put an end to the lawsuits filed against Israel and the United States in the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, as well as Interpol and the justice system of other countries. Palestine has filed a lawsuit against the United States in the International Court of Justice against the United States over the illegitimacy of the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Palestinians are also seeking in the International Criminal Court to convict Israeli criminals who committed war crimes and other crimes under the jurisdiction of the court during armed attacks. In fact, many of Israel’s crimes are subjected to be suited according to the principle of universal jurisdiction, meaning that even without the pursuit of the Palestinians, they may be prosecuted in the courts of different countries.
Although in the past the basis of international law has been the forerunner of peace over justice, but today justice, including international criminal justice, is one of the prerequisites for the realization of international peace. The fact that the United States and Israel do not adhere to international law, human rights and the rule of law will certainly lead to the instability of any peace treaty, especially Trump’s imaginary peace plan, which is not acceptable to Palestine and Islamic countries.
Finally, it is suggested that the media not refer to this one-sided and paradoxical plan to determine the fate of the Palestinians as a deal of the century. In fact, the United States and the occupying regime in Jerusalem, with Trump’s imaginary peace plan, are seeking to discredit UN General Assembly resolutions and create a deadlock in Security Council resolutions. It is the duty of all governments to stand up to Trump’s plan, which opposes real peace and human rights, by implementing the mechanism of the Alliance for Peace, in line with the implementation of international commitments governing the situation in Jerusalem.
It is also the duty of the Islamic countries and the regional and global organizations to stand against the excessive demands of the United States with strong and integrated position; because of disregard for international law and not considering the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people and negligence to their legitimate rights and interests the plan will certainly be doomed to failure.
(Henry Stimson, who was foreign minister of the United States during the presidency of Herbert Hoover, refused to recognize the Manchu government, which was formed by the Japanese Empire after its invasion of the People’s Republic of China, in violation of the UN Charter, that is famous as Stimson doctrine.)