Donald Trump's "Deal of the Century" recognizes that just as the region has changed, so must the approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking also change.
By JPOST EDITORIALU.S. President Donald Trump looks over at Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a joint news conference to announce a new Middle East peace plan proposal in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S., January 28, 2020(photo credit: REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS)
In the nearly 53 years since the 1967 Six Day War, numerous US plans have been put on the table to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.There was the Rogers Plan in 1969, the Reagan Plan in 1982, and the Clinton Parameters in 2000. Other presidents, though their names were not connected to any particular plan, also devoted considerable time and effort in trying to solve the conflict, from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush to Barack Obama.None of those plans worked, and peace continues to be elusive. But each of those plans and rounds of negotiations did set parameters that then became the touchstone for discussions on the matter for years.One of the main principles of the Rogers Plan was a withdrawal from all land taken from the Egyptians in the Six Day War; the Reagan Plan talked about a self-governing Palestinian Authority and a settlement freeze; and the Clinton parameters discussed dividing Jerusalem.It is doubtful that the most recent plan, President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” will have much more success in bringing about immediate peace between Israel and the Palestinians than the other plans, if only because the Palestinians are not even willing to look at it. There can be no peace between partners, if one of the partners is not interested or involved.The tragedy is that the Palestinians, by refusing to consider this plan, may be missing yet another opportunity – just as they did in 1936, 1947, 2000 and 2008 – to grab onto a path that could lead to statehood: maybe not the state of their dreams, maybe not a fulfillment of all their fantasies, but at least something to grasp onto and work with.Of what use, then, is the whole “Deal of the Century” exercise?The cynics will say that the only real use is for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump, as it provides them with political and electoral benefits.But those same cynics probably did not read the plan, because it does something else as well: it shifts the dimensions of the conversation about what a future agreement needs to look like. And for Israel, that is a net gain.From Israel’s point of view, even though the plan will not likely bring peace, the very fact that it was presented overturns certain assumptions that have congealed over time. It forces everyone to look at the issue differently, taking into consideration both the degree to which the region has changed and the experience gained in the more than 25 years since the Oslo Accords were signed.
One assumption the plan flips is that a peace deal must mean a nearly full Israeli return to the pre-1967 lines.Neither Israel nor the United States, according to the text of the proposal, believes “the State of Israel is legally bound to provide the Palestinians with 100 percent of pre-1967 territory (a belief that is consistent with United Nations Security Council 242).”Another assumption overturned is that in any plan, settlements beyond the large settlement blocks will have to be removed.Not so, says the United States government, asserting: “Peace should not demand the uprooting of people – Arab or Jew – from their homes. Such a construct, which is more likely to lead to civil unrest, runs counter to the idea of coexistence.”The plan also upends long-held assumptions regarding refugees, such as that there can be an unlimited number allowed entry into a future Palestinian state.It also sets important benchmarks – often overlooked when talking about a Palestinian state – that must be met: Hamas must be disarmed, payments to terrorists must cease, corruption must end, and human rights must be respected.All negotiations since Oslo have followed along the same general path, and have been guided by the same assumptions. This plan challenges those assumptions and recognizes that just as the region has changed, so must the approach to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking also change.The plan tries to strike a balance between meeting Palestinian aspirations for statehood, while preserving Israeli security. It does a good job on the security element, acknowledging that there can be no margin for error. Regarding the Palestinian aspirations, its theme is simple: something is much better than nothing.It is time the Palestinians agreed.
