British Analysis: Trump's Plan Institutionalizes Colonialism in Gaza

Opinion pieces published in British newspapers today condemned the American-Israeli peace plan for the Gaza war, with writers describing the plan as a "colonial deception" at its core and merely a continuation of the suffering of Palestinians under a new guise.

Sam Kelly, the global affairs editor at the British newspaper The Independent, stated that Donald Trump's peace plan for Gaza appears at first glance to be a breakthrough as it paves the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but he emphasized that it is a "well-crafted colonial deception" aimed at perpetuating Israeli dominance over Palestinians.

The "trap," as he put it, lies in the fact that the plan obliges Israel to acknowledge the Palestinians' right to self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian state, which is something the Israeli government is impossible to agree to.

Colonialism of the king and the ruler, and the "bitter" truth is that Gaza will remain a colony—according to the terms of the "cunning plan"—but under the leadership of "King" Trump and the "new ruler," former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who the Middle East still "curses" for what he did in Iraq, according to the writer.

He confirmed that the king and the ruler will manage Gaza indefinitely, or until the Palestinian Authority—"which governs some areas that do not concern Israel in the West Bank," as the article puts it—proves its worthiness to govern.

The writer believes that the Authority "works with its occupiers to regulate the armed resistance of Palestinians," which undermines the people's trust in it, especially since it welcomed Trump's colonial proposal.

As for the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), the writer continues, its goal is to destroy the Jewish state, and its project is both religious and political, and even "if the movement is militarily defeated in the short term, its ideas have seeped into the soil of Gaza, watered by the blood of innocents killed by Israel, and thus resistance is sure to return again."

Kelly pointed out in this regard to the West Bank, where Israeli tanks suppressed resistance during the second intifada and imprisoned Palestinians behind a "security wall," and most people in the West Bank believed that fighting Israel was futile, but here is the current generation carrying the banner of struggle once again.

Kelly concluded that any hope for long-term peace is contingent upon granting Palestinians a real promise of an independent state.

He warned that deploying Arab or international forces in Gaza according to Trump's plan is "pure madness that will lead the forces into direct confrontation with a people who see the plan as a new colonialism that could lead to the same moral nightmare that Gaza is experiencing now."

Patrick Cockburn, a correspondent for the British newspaper The i Paper, wrote in his article that the international welcome for the plan reflects "international horror" at the genocide in Gaza, but he sees that optimism is "just an illusion," as the plan is "nothing but a fragile structure" for a reality that cannot be realized.

The release of prisoners—according to what the article conveyed about the plan's provisions—does not guarantee the end of the war but is a crucial political gain for Netanyahu, who is likely to portray it as evidence of the success of his policies and army in the Gaza war and the regional conflicts that arose from it.

It is likely, according to the writer, that Palestinians will demand guarantees that prevent Netanyahu from returning to war immediately after the completion of the prisoner deal, so that he does not find— as he has in the past—a flimsy excuse to end the ceasefire and resume war.

Cockburn confirmed that Netanyahu often "picks what suits him" from agreements, and thus it is unlikely that all provisions of the plan—crafted by U.S. envoy Steve Wittekov and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner—will be realized, especially since its ambiguity leaves Netanyahu with ample room for maneuver if he wants to evade the agreement.

Cockburn asserted that Blair's appointment to the proposed "Peace Council" to govern the sector is ridiculous, stating that the former British Prime Minister's renewed enthusiasm in the Middle East ignores "the legacy of destruction he left in Iraq and Afghanistan."

For his part, Josh Paul— in an article published by the British newspaper The Guardian—harshly criticized the Kushner and Blair plan, describing it as "a moral crime and a political disaster," and reminded of Blair's experience in Iraq, when Washington imposed a foreign rule "lacking legitimacy" with catastrophic consequences, warning that the same thing is repeating in Gaza.

It is worth noting that the writer was a national security advisor in the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, then worked as