MOTTO:

“President Trump, Donald, I am honoured to be here today. I believe that down the decades and perhaps down the centuries we will also remember January 28, 2020, because on this day you became the first world leader to recognise Israel’s sovereignty over areas in Judea and Samaria that are vital to our security and central to our heritage.”  (Benjamin Netanyahu, January 28, 2020)

“I say to Trump and Netanyahu: Jerusalem is not for sale, all our rights are not for sale and are not for bargain. And your deal, the conspiracy, will not pass”. (Mahmoud Abbas, January 28, 2020)

 A Preamble

      After two years of wait, controversies, scenarios and contradicting hypotheses, on the 28th of January 2020 president Donald Trump revealed, at the White House, the contents of the long-awaited US plan regarding the achievement of a peace solution to the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which the US president emphatically called “the Deal of the Century”. The ceremony took place in the presence of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, White House officials, including the team (led by the son-in-law and presidential advisor Jared Kushner), who had been working for two years to develop and finish the massive dossier regarding the US peace initiative. Neither having been informed nor consulted when the US initiative was launched and – , developed, the Palestinians were not present when this “peace plan” was made official, a plan they had been contesting and rejecting since its inception.

A Brief Background

     It is not less true that, for the past two years the USA hasn’t stopped notifying the Palestinian leadership that “things have been evolving”; however, these notifications were - by their very essence and consequences, rather manifestations of an openly pro-Israel US policy, which contributed to a radicalization of the Palestinian approach and to them becoming a direct belligerent party. Here are some relevant illustrations:

-         on the 20th December 2017 the Trump administration announced the US’ recognition of Jerusalem as the indivisible, permanent capital of the State of Israel and the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to the Holy City;

-         that was followed by the recognition of Israel’s right to ownership over the Palestinian occupied territories, where Israeli settlements were located;

-         independently from his US ally, prime minister Netanyahu announced, most likely under the pressure of the elections calculations, his intent to claim sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and over lands north of the Dead Sea.

-         the USA has also stopped its financial aid to the UNRWA and closed the Palestinian mission in Washington DC;

-         on the 25th and 26th of June 2019, Manama (the capital of Bahrain) hosted, at the initiative of Trump Administration, the forum “From Peace to Prosperity”. While the Palestinians were not invited, the economic component of the peace initiative was presented; the component, which proposed for the Palestinians a Horn of Plenty filled with 50 billion dollars representing investments for the development of the future “State of Palestine”, if they agreed with the American political conditions soon to be made public. It was actually a cosmetised return to the idea of an “economic peace” that had already been advertised over the years, including by Benjamin Netanyahu. The deal was rejected by the Palestinians.

Prime-Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (left) and President Donald Trump

Reactions to Trump’s Presentation of the Peace Plan

     As expected, reactions to the publicized contents of the US plan official were swift and as many, as different and as wide - from criticism and rejection, to prudent calls for restraint and dialogue.

     “We say a thousand times, no, no, no!” was the first comment of the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas who warned he would denounce them at the International Court for Justice. “It is impossible for any Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, or Christian child to accept a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital” stated Abbas.

Mahmoud Abbas

     As for Hamas, the spokesperson of the organisation stated that “we won’t accept any substitute for Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state”.

     To the military-political Lebanese movement, Hezbollah, the “US peace plan is an attempt to annihilate the historical and legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”.

     The Turkish foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu believed that the agreement was “stillborn” and “an annexation plan aiming at usurping Palestinian lands and killing a two-state solution”, while in Jordan, the head of Jordanian diplomacy stated that “an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 frontiers […] is the only path to a comprehensive and lasting peace.”

     Egypt was more reserved and called the Palestinians and the Israelis “to undertake a careful and thorough consideration of the US vision to achieve peace and open channels of dialogue, under US auspices”.

     In Berlin, the German foreign minister stated that the US proposal raised new and unforeseen questions, which would have to be discussed with all European partners.

     The EU High Representative, Josep Borell highlighted the “firm commitment” of the European Union “to a negotiated and viable two-state solution that takes into account the legitimate aspirations of both the Palestinians and the Israelis”.

     The Russian Federation was in favour of “direct negotiations between the Israeli and the Palestinians in order to reach a mutual accepted consensus”.

     In London, prime minister Boris Johnson believed that the US peace plan “could prove a positive step forwards”, while the British foreign minister, Dominic Raab encouraged the Israelis and the Palestinians “to give these plans genuine and fair consideration”.

     Finally, the UN reiterated that the organisation stands with the two-state solution founded on resolutions of the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, which, therefore remains unchanged.

The new geographic configuration of the US peace plan In green, the future Palestinian State (Source: www.jta.org)

      Putting forward the “historical” proposals for peace between Palestinians and Israelis, president Donald Trump described his vision as “a realistic solution” based on the implementation of the formula of two states coexisting in parallel. However, the details of the plan include conditions that actually contradict his statement and, even more, draw a potentially problematic roadmap, which imposes a new status quo and leads to regional changes and alterations of the map and geopolitical configuration of the “Palestinian dossier” and Israel’s borders. To sum up, the inventory of the benefits and offers of the “deal of the century” include:

- the city of Jerusalem will remain - without negotiations between the two sides - in its entirety and permanently, the capital of Israel;

- the plan proposes the creation of a Palestinian capital in “Eastern Jerusalem”, in one or two of its suburbs (Abu Dis, Shuafat or others). By using the phrase “Eastern Jerusalem”, Donald Trump envisages areas adjacent to the actual Jerusalem’s immediate outer areas, which means the future island capitals of the “Palestinian state” will actually be outside the wall separating Jerusalem from the autonomous Palestinian territories;

- the Palestinian state as imagined by its US planners will be a “coherent, contiguous and united” organism. The future state will be a de facto state made of what would be left of the West Bank after Israel annexes the Jewish settlements, on one hand, and Gaza Strip on the other. The two territories would then be connected by a system made of tunnels and roads. Israel would keep control over security, water reserves, energy resources and infrastructure;

- the “state” thus created will be demilitarised, and Israel would retain the veto over its electricity, water, custom duties destined to Palestinians, as well as other utilities. Under such circumstances, the two-state formula will become one of two Palestinian territories connected by roads and tunnels and forcibly called a “state” next to Israel. This actually is a tri-state formula - West Bank, Gaza and Israel;

- all these statehood benefits come with Palestine abiding by a set of prerequisites that include 1) recognising Israel as a “Judaic state”, and 2) “institutional consolidation”, a very confusing and ambiguous term, which is not explained by the text of the plan;

- the only concession the Israelis are willing to make refers to the agreement regarding the US proposal to freeze the building of new settlements for four years, with a view to conduct negotiations where the Palestinians can raise eventual claims. It is hard to believe that, under these circumstances they would still want to negotiate since their most important and vital claims have been cast aside by the “deal of the century”;

- reiterating the old idea of “territorial exchanges”, Trump’s plan says that the Palestinians will receive territories in the southern part of Israel, namely in the Negev desert, for agriculture and an industrial area;

- the USA agreed to recognize Israel’s annexation of the West Bank settlements, as well as the Jordan Valley and the northern coast of the Dead Sea. The annexation of the settlements means that almost 30% of this autonomous Palestinian territory would become Israeli sovereign territory.

     Note: The Jordan Valley is a strip of fertile land on the banks of the River Jordan and makes almost 30% of the West Bank. It is currently inhabited by almost 65,000 Palestinians and almost 10,000 Israeli settlers. While the Palestinians this piece of land represents a major part of Palestinian territory and future country, Israel claims that the Jordan Valley is vital to its own security. Moreover, president Trump himself stated that “Jordan Valley, which is vital for Israel, will pass under the sovereignty of this state”.

- another vital matter to the Palestinians is cast aside by the American plan. We are referring to the fact that, according to the plan the issue of the Palestinian refugees will no longer exist. They will be able to make a choice whether to live in the “future” Palestinian state, or settle in the Negev desert, thus “integrating” in the Israeli society, or permanently integrate in the countries where they currently reside.

     What do the Palestinians get in return?

     At the Forum in Bahrain, the Americans spoke of a 50 billion USD financial aid for social and economic development, new jobs and infrastructural development. Smaller aids (between 5 and 10 billion dollars) would be given to Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon. We must mention that the funds would mainly come from Arab states.

     The USA would open an embassy in the future Palestinian “state”, in its capital in eastern Jerusalem.

     The current status-quo of the Temple Mount will be maintained, as the location of the Muslim and Jewish holy sites.

 Another Hotbed of Conflict

     In Arabic language, as well as in political and historical Palestinian discourses, nakba is a term that translates into “catastrophe”, “calamity” and refers to the beginning of the Palestinian drama along with the official creation of the State of Israel, back in May 1948. In the light of those made public by president Trump, there are many observers and analysts, mostly Palestinians, who believe that, given the way it was conceived (“to be purposely rejected by the Palestinians”), the American peace plan has all it takes to become the next, and perhaps the last nakba. It is very likely that the unrest – political and at the level of the Palestinian society, which has a rich and bloody experience with protests and intifada, should intensify in the upcoming future. However, beyond all political and legal reasoning, whether local or international, there are issues that create a real “Gordian knot” to any “peacemaker”, since they are in direct connection to both Palestinian and Israeli collective memories and identities, which go beyond negotiations and treaties, only to exert new ways to perceive their sense of belonging to a cultural, anthropological, religious and historic background. “Foreign Policy” reminds us some of these matters:

     Firstly, the Jewish and the Palestinian Arabs deeply identify themselves with their sacred lands, without which their peoples would be lost.

     Secondly, one must recognize that any agreement or peace treaty would be considered moot by both sides when such a peace ignores the citizen’s inalienable right to freedom and to the community they belong to.

     Thirdly, the Jewish, the Muslims, as well as the Christians are organically, temperamentally and spiritually connected to the Holy City of Jerusalem whose loss is seen as a tearing of history, from which neither of the three great monotheistic religions have abdicated for millennia and are not about to give up now.

     As long as the Palestinians and the Israelis, and along with them the international community will not acknowledge these realities that do not comply with the judicial, electoral, political, or otherness related paradigms, the “plans” and “deals” which “trade” peace and coexistence will keep on fuelling the flames of conflict and insecurity.