As the full details of the U.S.-Israeli scheming known as the “Deal of the Century” are revealed, there is no need for additional strategic delays or the lobbying of supporters from the Arab world to influence the complete colonization of Palestine.

Recognition of Israel’s illegal settlements, the elimination of the Palestinian right of return, a demilitarized Gaza, fragments of East Jerusalem neighborhoods for a future capital city of a hypothetical Palestinian state, and the attempt to recruit Palestinian prisoners into preaching coexistence with colonialism are a few highlights of how the U.S. is proposing to solve—decades of international law violations which can only be overturned through decolonization.

The Palestinian people of course, have rejected the deal. So have Palestinian political factions and the Palestinian Authority (PA). The UN issued a statement insisting upon the two-state paradigm and committing two mistakes. Primarily, it has reiterated its support for an obsolete international imposition. Secondly, the UN is complicit in the mainstream narrative of pitting U.S. President Donald Trump as a pariah to the international community.

The UN paved the path for Israel’s colonization of Palestine, as well as the “Deal of the Century,” by encouraging a culture of impunity for Israeli war crimes.

The focus on Palestine is marginalized in favor of scoring high on the diplomatic agenda. Yet the UN paved the path for Israel’s colonization of Palestine, as well as the “Deal of the Century,” by encouraging a culture of impunity for Israeli war crimes. The duplicity instigated by the UN cannot be overlooked in the aftermath of Trump’s pernicious deal.

While affirming commitment to the two-state compromise, it was reported that Western countries and international organizations “needed time to assess the plan.” This is in line with the former EU Foreign Affairs representative Federica Mogherini’s statement in June 2019 that the EU would work with Trump if the proposed deal included the two-state paradigm.

So far, the international community’s language indicates a cautious rhetorical rejection while leaving open the possibility of considering Trump’s deal. France is one such example, insisting upon a “two-state solution” while welcoming “President Trump’s efforts.”

A more overt approach towards the deal, and one that was planned for, came from the Arab states which have long abandoned Palestine in favor of lucrative diplomatic and economic deals with Israel. Despite the fact that the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative conditioned the normalization of relations with Israel based upon implementing the two-state paradigm, Arab states have largely abandoned the requirement.

In 2019, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recognized the shift and lobbied Arab leaders, notably those of the Gulf States, to align their interests with those of Israel. The Warsaw Summit in February 2019 was one example in which Arab support for the Palestinian anti-colonial struggle was dismissed, in favor of rallying behind Israel over the purported Iranian threat.

This gradual dismissal of Palestine and Palestinians was brought to the fore during the unveiling of the U.S.-Israeli framework.

This gradual dismissal of Palestine and Palestinians was brought to the fore during the unveiling of the U.S.-Israeli framework. Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates sent their ambassadors for the occasion; the latter stating, “The plan announced today offers an important starting point for a return to negotiations within a U.S.-led international framework.”

Egypt also expressed cautious support for the plan, suggesting that Israelis and Palestinians “carefully study” Trump’s proposals. Likewise, Saudi Arabia “appreciates the efforts of President Trump’s administration to develop a comprehensive peace plan.”

Yemen, Iran, and Turkey had the strongest words of condemnation for the colonial framework masquerading as a solution. Lebanon’s Hezbollah denounced the plan, saying it required the “complicity and betrayal” of Arab nations to come to fruition.

PA officials had urged Arab leaders to boycott the launch. However, the PA itself does not command respect or attention when it comes to the political rights of the Palestinian people. The PA’s existence and function is dependent upon donor aid and collaboration with Israel; hence it can exert limited political influence.

Additionally, PA officials have squandered opportunities in the past to remain steadfast in demanding land rights and return. It is difficult not to remember how the Palestine Papers revealed that PA Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat offered Israel “the biggest Jerusalem in history,” alongside conceding to a symbolic return of refugees and a demilitarized state.

The “Deal of the Century” has united the majority of the international community against the Palestinian people by exposing the fallacy of the two-state diplomacy. Not only did the international community fail to deliver; it also created the space for the extension of the original two-state framework in the form of Trump’s deal. This was only possible due to UN complacency over Israeli colonization.

The two-state compromise empowered Israel’s stalling while actively pursuing persistent settlement expansion, until it was rendered obsolete.

The two-state compromise empowered Israel’s stalling, while actively pursuing persistent settlement expansion, until it was rendered obsolete by the same diplomats who promoted the framework, notably the Middle East Quartet (United States, European Union (EU), United Nations (UN), and Russia).

Neither did the UN exhibit any commitment regarding the Palestinian right of return. Instead, the international organization devised a plan to keep Palestinians subjugated to humanitarian aid. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) has been tasked with providing humanitarian assistance, yet the political approach to help Palestinians return and achieve their liberation was never implemented by the international community.

Through the proposed U.S. framework, Israel can accelerate the process. The vague references to a Palestinian state will ensure an almost negligible opposition from the international community. If the international community objects, Israel and the U.S. can rely upon the obsolete nature of the two-state framework.

The UN will want to retain its leverage over the developments without asserting the importance of Palestinian liberation. Hence, the diplomatic route will ultimately fall between tacit silence from the UN when Israel starts implementing the deal unilaterally, and gradual UN alignment for yet another compromise that allows it the pretense of safeguarding human rights.

The U.S. and Israel aimed for Palestine’s absence from the political process that determines its fate. Trump’s plan is currently bolstered by an undeserved sensationalism that ignores the lengthy process resulting in this blatant travesty. The media has reported about Palestinians protesting in anger, but less has been articulated about the importance of making Palestinian demands heard.

The U.S.-Israeli alliance is indeed dangerous. But the biggest danger that has accumulated is, without a doubt, the role undertaken by the international community to steal the narrative on Palestine from Palestinians, for the purpose of building an agenda for Israel.