Al Jazeera Discovers Ukraine Peace Plan, Ignores Past 'Peace' Deals
The mainstream narrative, exemplified by Al Jazeera's piece, breathlessly dissects a potential Trump-era peace deal for Ukraine, focusing on 'territorial concessions.' This framing conveniently bypasses how the U.S. and its allies have historically treated sovereignty and international law when it suits their geopolitical aims, from the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the bombing of Serbia in
1999 without UN Security Council approval. These weren't 'concessions'; they were violations. One might wonder why a Western-brokered plan for Ukraine is dissected with such solemn gravity, while 'peace plans' for Palestine, involving actual decades of land theft, are consistently presented as though both sides share equal blame and concessions from Palestinians are always the only viable way
forward. Instead of genuinely questioning how such 'peace' plans often legitimize aggression or what they mean for international precedent, media outlets like Al Jazeera frame them with a veneer of diplomatic earnestness. (Because, you know, 'negotiation' totally means giving up what was stolen.) The silence on how often U.S.-brokered deals disproportionately favor the aggressor, especially when
that aggressor serves Western interests, is deafening. How many 'peace plans' have guaranteed Israeli expansion while demanding Palestinian capitulation? How many 'viable two-state solutions' have left Palestinians with shrinking, fragmented land?