In the span of a week, the Trump administration succeeded in passing a United Nations Security Council resolution on Gaza (based on its earlier 20-point plan to end the conflict) and also released a 28-point peace plan for Ukraine. Commentators and critics have noted some similarities between the two initiatives. There are also profound differences that are important to note.

In the first place, the intention of both plans appears to be driven by the simple and commendable goal of ending the ongoing violence in Gaza and Ukraine. While trying to do this, however, critics note that aggressors have been given undo deference. In the case of Ukraine, it was deemed that the way forward was in awarding Russia’s land grab in eastern and southern Ukraine. In the case of Gaza, no attention was paid to Israel’s genocidal crimes against Palestinians with the assumption that the victims should make do with aid and some form of recovery—even though it appears from the plan that their future remains indeterminate and subject to the will of others.

The problems with both plans owe to the fact that they were initially drafted without the input of either the Palestinians or Ukrainians. The exact origins of the Gaza plan remain somewhat murky, but what’s clear is the absence of Palestinian participation. The UN resolution’s only mention of the Palestinian Authority is a reference to their possible future involvement should they meet unspecified reforms, at which point the PA “may” be allowed to assume a role in Gaza on terms approved by Israel and the international bodies the resolution has established to govern Gaza controlling the funds and making the plans to help Gaza recover.

The Ukraine plan’s origins have been a subject of some controversy. At first the US claimed it had been developed with the Russians, based on a Russian draft. Then they denied any US involvement, only later to “clarify” that it had been a joint US-Russian effort. After push back from Europeans and some Republican senators, the US engaged with the Ukrainians, making some changes which may or may not be acceptable to the Russian side.

Herein lies one of the differences between the two plans. Ukraine is recognized as a sovereign entity, despite the draft plan’s allowing for violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The plan for Gaza, on the other hand, not only doesn’t acknowledge Palestinian sovereignty, but also goes to great lengths to erase it. It subjects Palestinians to the whims of Israel and the international bodies—led by the US—which will be positioned to serve as sovereigns over decisions that will shape the future of the Palestinian people.

There are, to be sure, what appear to be feints toward Palestinian sovereignty—a “tip of the hat” to the Saudi-French Proposal, references to a Palestinian police force, and the idea that a reformed PA “may” be involved in the future. But these are conditioned on terms established by others, rather than as rights. All of this seems to pour cold water on the giddiness accompanying the Special Session on Palestine that preceded the opening of this year’s General Assembly when a number of states recognized Palestinian statehood.

Especially concerning in this slighting of the PA is the lack of acknowledgement or understanding by the Gaza plan’s architects that Israel has, for........

© Common Dreams