3 weeks ago
56
ARTICLE AD BOX
Trump may yet act as an honest broker in bringing a “Deal of the Century” to fruition.
By NEVILLE TELLER DECEMBER 2, 2024 02:26
PRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump, during his first term as US president, arrive to deliver joint remarks on the ‘Deal of the Century’ proposal, at the White House in 2020.
(photo credit: JOSHUA ROBERTS/REUTERS)
On his first time around the presidential election circuit, Donald Trump placed so much emphasis on his desire to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians that once he was elected, I decided to follow his progress on this with special care.
The result was a book (details below), which I concluded with a summary of the Israel-Palestinian peace plan that had been assiduously put together over the preceding four years by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by his side, Trump presented the plan to the world on January 28, 2020.
It was greeted with howls of derision from Palestinians and their supporters around the Middle East and beyond, all vowing to thwart it if any attempt was made to put it into effect.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas appeared on television a few minutes after the Trump presentation, rejecting it completely: “I say to Trump and Netanyahu,” he declared, “Jerusalem is not for sale, all our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain… We say a thousand no’s to this deal.” He was referring to the extraordinarily generous economic element of the plan, which aimed to create a vibrant, flourishing Palestinian state over 10 years.
Abbas’s reaction was far from the view of some influential figures in the Middle East and across the world. Bahrain and Oman signaled their approval by sending representatives to the White House ceremony. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates issued statements welcoming the plan.
For example, the statement issued by the Saudi Foreign Ministry said: “The kingdom appreciates the efforts of President Trump’s administration to develop a comprehensive peace plan between the Palestinian and the Israeli sides, and encourages the start of direct peace negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides, under the auspices of the United States.”
The Egyptian Foreign Ministry issued a similar statement: “Egypt recognizes the importance of considering the US administration’s initiative from the perspective of the importance of achieving the resolution of the Palestinian issue, thus restoring to the Palestinian people their full legitimate rights through the establishment of a sovereign independent state in the Palestinian occupied territories in accordance with international legitimacy and resolutions.”
The UK offered typically restrained approval. Trump said that then-UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, had called him earlier to offer support. Dominic Raab, Britain’s then-foreign secretary, welcomed the plan as “a serious proposal” and urged the Palestinians not to reject it out of hand.
The Australian government also welcomed the peace proposal, calling it a positive move and encouraging both parties to consider it as a basis for dialogue.
Stay updated with the latest news!
Subscribe to The Jerusalem Post Newsletter
Clearly, the plan had a degree of regional and international approval in 2020.
A change in times
MUCH HAS happened since then. In 2024’s changed circumstances, with Hamas decapitated and the Gaza Strip on the verge of reconstitution, Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People” would certainly need amendment. But could it provide the basis for a renewed peace process?
The plan is divided into two parts: economic and political. The economic portion was the first to be released, in June 2019. Subtitled “A New Vision for the Palestinian People,” the 40-page document set out in considerable detail a scenario under which, with a huge input of funding, prospects for the Palestinians would be immeasurably transformed for the better.
In the present circumstances, what would additionally be required is a fully-funded program – to which, no doubt, Israel would contribute in full measure – designed to reconstruct Gaza’s cities in as short a time frame as feasible.
As for the original program, in the document’s words: “With the potential to facilitate more than $50 billion in new investment over 10 years, Peace to Prosperity represents the most ambitious and comprehensive effort for the Palestinian people to date.
It can fundamentally transform the West Bank and Gaza, and open a new chapter in Palestinian history – one defined not by adversity and loss, but by freedom and dignity.”
The main goal was to connect Palestinian-occupied areas to regional and global markets, and integrating Gaza and the West Bank “through an efficient, modern transportation network, including a transportation corridor directly connecting” the two areas.
“Billions of dollars of new investment will flow into various sectors of the Palestinian economy,” envisioned the document, which also detailed how “hospitals, schools, homes, and businesses will secure access to affordable electricity, clean water, and digital services.”
The plan for the future
Additionally, the plan envisaged improving the well-being of the Palestinian people through educational programs, vocational and technical training, expanding the female labor force, reducing infant mortality, and increasing average life expectancy.
The details were no sooner released than they were rejected out of hand by Palestinian spokespeople. Abbas declared: “There can be no economic solution before there’s a political solution.” Demonstrations opposing the plan were held in the West Bank and Gaza.
The 200-page political component of the plan, unveiled in 2020, while asserting that “any workable peace agreement must address the Palestinians’ legitimate desire for self-determination,” sweeps aside the issue of the “occupied territories” – namely the areas conquered from the Jordanian, Egyptian, and Syrian armies in the 1967 Six Day War.Maintaining that the succession of UN resolutions claiming these areas as Palestinian are self-contradictory and demonstrably ineffective, the plan proposes a path to a peaceful compromise.
Israel would be allowed to incorporate West Bank settlements into Israel proper, and in compensation, would yield an equivalent amount of territory adjacent to, and south of, the Gaza Strip.
Therefore, the plan envisages the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank in the areas outside the settlements, plus a greatly expanded Gaza.
All the Palestinian territories would be made contiguous by way of a network of highways, bridges, and a road tunnel linking the West Bank to Gaza.
Additionally, the Palestinians would have a capital in eastern Jerusalem based on northern and eastern neighborhoods that are outside the Israeli security barrier.
This prospect is dependent on the Palestinian leadership renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The plan allows four years for these conditions to be met.
Back in 2016, Trump said: “I would love to be the one who made peace with Israel and the Palestinians. That would be such a great achievement.” If he remains wedded to the idea in his second term, he will surely base his renewed effort on the painstaking work already undertaken by Kushner.
With the bones of a plan already devised and the political landscape much changed, he might find the Palestinian leadership more amenable to negotiation now than in 2020. Trump may yet act as an honest broker in bringing a “Deal of the Century” to fruition.
The writer is the Middle East correspondent for Eurasia Review. His latest book is Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020. Follow him at: www.a-mid-east-journal.blogspot.com.
English (US) ·