Business Report

Peace Without Justice: Palestine being sold by gangsters

Shabodien Roomanay|Published

Donald Trump’s so-called 'peace plan' is not a genuine attempt at justice; it demands submission while masking the harsh realities faced by Palestinians. Shabodien Roomanay explores the implications of such a plan and argues for a peace rooted in justice and equality.

Image: White House

Donald Trump’s so-called “peace plan” is not an attempt at justice; it is a demand for submission dressed up as diplomacy. It asks the world to applaud the language of peace while looking away at the reality of dispossession. It is not that people are tired of peace, they are tired of fake peace, imposed peace, peace that requires one side to disappear. What is understandable is the list of signatories to this plan. All nations deeply captured by the USA and others “tariff-ied” of Trump. 

A peace process that excludes Palestinians from meaningful authorship of their own future is not a peace plan at all. It is a unilateral political settlement designed to normalise occupation, reward power and create a permanence of injustice. Peace cannot be subcontracted to the occupier and then sold to the occupied as a favour.

At its core, Trump’s approach follows a very familiar colonial script:

Land is taken first. Destroy the occupied peoples which allows for the unfettered power to define the legality of your actions. Then, the dispossessed are invited only to accept the outcome.

The Palestinians are treated not as a people with inalienable rights, but as a humanitarian problem to be managed, bribed with economic incentives while stripped of sovereignty, borders, airspace, water and the right of return. This is not peace. It is containment. Rubbish. 

Worse still, the plan attempts to redefine justice itself. International law, UN resolutions and decades of consensus are dismissed as inconvenient. Occupation is reframed as  the need for “security.” Apartheid conditions are softened with the language of “autonomy.” Resistance is criminalised, while violence is rendered invisible. Inevitably, international law is suspended. Only when you are a white nation and have been allowed to build an arsenal of destructive weaponry with which to threaten, insult, subdue and when required destroy a people is this possible. It is important to quote Francesca Albanese where she said: “Palestine is revealing to us… the world of idiots in which we live. If we cannot stop it, we have truly lost what’s left of our humanity.”

History teaches us something very simple: There is no peace without justice, and no justice without equality. As South Africans, we know this well. Peace did not arrive because apartheid was made more efficient or economically attractive. It arrived when the system itself became morally and politically indefensible and when the oppressed were globally recognised as equal partners in shaping the future by aggressively applying boycotts, divestment and sanctions. 

What would a just solution look like?

A just and lasting peace must be built on clear, non-negotiable principles:

  • Full recognition of Palestinian peoplehood. Palestinians are not a demographic obstacle or a security threat. They are a people with the same right to self-determination as any other nation.
  • An end to occupation and apartheid practices. No peace plan can coexist with military occupation, illegal settlements, checkpoints, sieges and collective punishment. These are not “issues to be negotiated later”, they are the problem.
  • Equal rights under the law. Ideally through one state with equal citizenship for all and equality before the law. Peace built on ethnic or religious supremacy is inherently unstable. 
  • Jerusalem as a shared city, not an exclusive prize. A city sacred to many cannot belong politically to one at the expense of others. Its future must reflect its plural reality.
  • A just resolution for all refugees. Refugees cannot be erased by decree. Any serious peace process must acknowledge historical dispossession and offer restitution, return or fair compensation in line with what is left of international law.
  • International guarantees, not imperial sponsorship. Peace cannot be brokered by a party that openly sides with one actor. It requires credible, multilateral guarantees rooted in law, not geopolitics. Not a recycled warmonger Tony Blair. 

This is the truth Trump’s plan avoids. Peace is not the absence of Palestinian resistance. Peace is the absence of Palestinian oppression. Until Palestinian lives are valued as fully as the lives of all others, until law applies equally and until power submits to morality, every “peace plan” will be rejected by history, even if it is applauded by presidents.

For those who believe that the world started on October 7, here’s a chronological overview of the major “unilateral” peace plans over decades with why each ultimately failed or stalled. I’ll focus on the most important ones rather than every minor initiative. 

Peace Commission

What it proposed

Why it collapsed

Peel Commission Plan (1937)

A Jewish state

An Arab state

A British-controlled corridor including Jerusalem

Arab leadership rejected partition outright, opposing any Jewish state

Zionist leadership accepted it only conditionally, seeing borders as too small

Escalating violence during the Arab Revolt (1936–1939)

Britain abandoned the plan as unworkable

UN Partition Plan – Resolution 181 (1947)

Two states: Jewish and Arab

Jerusalem as an international city

Jewish state got ~55% of the land (despite Jews being ~1/3 of population)

Accepted by Jewish leadership, rejected by Arab states and Palestinian Arabs

Immediate civil war followed

Arab–Israeli War of 1948 broke out after Israel declared independence

Resulted in Nakba (mass Palestinian displacement)

Lausanne Conference (1949)

Address borders, refugees, and Jerusalem after the 1948 war

Refugee repatriation or compensation

Israel refused large-scale refugee return

Arab states refused to formally recognise Israel

Positions hardened after the war

Camp David Accords (1978)

Framework for Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza

Led to Israel–Egypt peace treaty

Palestinians were not directly represented

Autonomy plans vague and never implemented

Focus shifted to Egypt–Israel normalisation

Arab world largely rejected it as sidelining Palestine

Madrid Conference (1991)

First direct negotiations between Israel and Arab neighbours

Multilateral talks on refugees, water, security

Palestinian delegation constrained (no PLO branding)

Talks produced process, not substance

Set the stage for Oslo, but achieved little on its own

Oslo Accords I & II (1993–1995)

Mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO

Creation of the Palestinian Authority

Gradual path to final-status talks (borders, refugees, Jerusalem)

Final-status issues postponed, never resolved

Continued Israeli settlement expansion

Palestinian frustration over lack of sovereignty

Assassination of Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin (1995)

Rise of Hamas and suicide bombings

Deep mistrust on both sides

Camp David Summit (2000)

Final-status agreement under US mediation

Palestinian state on most of West Bank and Gaza

Disagreement over:

Jerusalem

Refugees’ right of return

Borders and security

Each side blamed the other for inflexibility

Shortly followed by the Second Intifada
Taba Talks (2001)

Most detailed negotiations ever

Significant convergence on borders and security

Israeli elections imminent → talks suspended

Second Intifada violence ongoing

Ariel Sharon elected; negotiations abandoned

Arab Peace Initiative (2002)

Full Arab recognition of Israel

In exchange for:

Withdrawal to 1967 borders

Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as capital

'Just solution' to refugees

Israel objected to refugee language

Lack of trust during Intifada

Never seriously negotiated bilaterally

Road Map for Peace (2003)

Phased plan toward a two-state solution

End violence → build institutions → final agreement

Both sides accused of non-compliance

Israel demanded security first

Palestinians demanded settlement freeze

No enforcement mechanism

Annapolis Conference (2007)

Renewed negotiations under US auspices

Two-state solution reaffirmed

Post–Hamas Gaza takeover

Israeli political instability

No binding outcomes

Kerry Initiative (2013–2014

US-led intensive shuttle diplomacy

Framework agreement on final status

Continued settlement expansion

Palestinian reconciliation with Hamas

Mutual accusations of bad faith

Trump 'Peace to Prosperity' Plan (2020)

Limited Palestinian statehood

Israeli annexation of settlements and Jordan Valley

Economic incentives for Palestinians

Rejected outright by Palestinians

Seen as heavily favoring Israel

No Palestinian participation in drafting

Trump Peace Plan 2026'Peace plan'ZERO PALESTINIAN CONTRIBUTION

Donald Trump’s so-called 'peace plan' is not a genuine attempt at justice; it demands submission while masking the harsh realities faced by Palestinians. Shabodien Roomanay explores the implications of such a plan and argues for a peace rooted in justice and equality.

Image: Supplied

Shabodien Roomanay is the board Chairman of Muslim Views Publication, founding member of the Salt River Heritage Society, and a trustee of the SA Foundation for Islamic Art. 

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.