Contrary to some optimist commentators, Donald Trump’s administration has not given up, nor does it intend to give up implementing the initiative to solving the Palestinian dossier that the occupant of the presidential seat in the Oval Office himself labelled as “Deal of the Century”. Several meetings took place, over the past three months, between the members of the US-Israeli mixed commission in charge of establishing, including mapping, the areas in the autonomous Palestinian territory of West Bank to be brought under Israeli sovereignty. The intention to annex the territory was announced by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, since the latest electoral crisis that ended with the formation of a new government of national unity based on the alliance between the right wing party Likud”, led by the prime minister, and the “Blue and White” party (right winged as well) led by the retired general Benny Gantz.

   The arguments used to support this new annexationist step are as many as they are diverse, and they refer mainly to considerations of Israel’s national security and to the density of Jewish settlements built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria to the Israelis).

A Jewish Settlement in the West Bank

   However, no matter the arguments supporting the implementation of this project, the fact remains that the area to be declared as a virtual state entity for the Palestinians will be considerably diminished. The geographical gap between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the lack of several fundamental elements that define a regular state, as well as Benjamin Netanyahu’s advertised intentions to extend the enforcement of the Israeli law over some territories in the Jordan Valley and North of the Dead Sea, will inevitably lead to more isolation of the Palestinians on a land that will not have any of the functions, competences and powers justifying the title “State of Palestine”. To put it differently, it would be an entity almost non-existent from a territorial point of view, with no geographical continuity and unity, with volatile borders and surrounded by a country – Israel – that would take complete control over the vital functions of this “State of Palestine” having the capital in one of Jerusalem’s suburbs. Israel would take over all matters of security, public order, energy and water resources, economy and finance, customs, tax collection, which means it would create some sort of “Bantustan” or “Ghetto”.

The West Bank – the Area Meant to Be Transferred Under Israeli Sovereignty

   The mere fact that the future of the West Bank is being discussed by US-Israeli mixed commissions, without any consultation or participation of the Palestinians, can only be seen as having two reasons and two main objectives. And we are referring to the Palestinian population and authorities being forced to face the facts and accept realities created by the exclusive will and consensus between the USA and Israel, or to immediately and indefinitely reject this offer to “solving” to the Palestinian future. Under these circumstances, both accepting the new maps drawn by the Israeli and US cartographers, as well as rejecting them are equally problematic.

   If it accepts, the National Palestinian Authority will inevitably enter a historical crisis, and will be accused of having practically said “yes” to giving up the very objective of its existence and of the Palestinian resistance after World War II, as well as to regaining the legitimate rights of the Palestinians to have their own sovereign, lasting country, and to the Palestinian refugees or their descendants to return to their homes.

   If the National Palestinian Authority refuses and denounces all the agreements and accords it signed with Israel – and this comes up frequently in president Mahmoud Abbas’s political speech – it is highly likely the entire Palestinian camp – from the public opinion and the Palestinian society, to its decision making elites and leaders – will be subjected to combined, multidirectional, new and strong pressures from Israel as well as from the United States. Their argument would be that neither the Palestine Liberation Organization, nor the National Palestinian Authority and president Mahmoud Abbas have the political will and power to become reliable partners in negotiating and solving the Palestinian issues on the whole, therefore they should be either declared incompatible, or replaced by more “objective” and more “realistic” leaders, at least as far as the Israelis and the Americans are concerned.

   On the other hand, there is no secret that president Donald Trump asked prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or more recently the duo Netanyahu-Benny Gantz, not to reveal how the planned annexation will take place before Israel’s formal declarative and anticipated recognition of the “New State of Palestine” drawn by Israeli and US cartographers. Apparently, such a sequence of stages can be regarded as an expression of the American fairness, as long as the Trump administration can brag about having imposed its Israeli ally to recognise the existence of the State of Palestine – even if the Palestinians themselves did not take part in its establishment – which, in return entails, according to the Americans, the Palestinians to recognise the State of Israel with its new borders, following the annexation and its new identity – that of a Jewish state. Rhetoric aside, Donald Trump’s idea is a mere display of populism whose obviousness is clear.

   Given the fact that the two state solution, as well as the solution of a State of Palestine that could exist alongside the State of Israel is not acceptable, we can only imagine that, should the Palestinians receive support from the Arab countries in the region and from the outside, we could be speaking again about the alternative “one state, two nations” that circulated a few years back but was not taken enough into consideration as a possible substitute for either a swift rejection or the “fait accompli” solution. It is an alternative that requires political will, and it also needs overcoming the strong opposition not only from the politicians, but from the Israeli and Palestinian societies, each deeply rooted in paradigms that became taboos, such as “the Jewish Palestine” or (to the Palestinians) “the unitary nation state with capital in Jerusalem”.

   There were many cases when, throughout history, the destiny of some peoples was decided arbitrarily, by a few lines drawn on a piece of paper, or by their failure to adjust, for decades, to the pace of the historical evolution, as they preferred the warm refuge of the inheritance left by the “founding fathers”. The Palestinian issue is deemed to fill in these obsolete patterns, that do not bring durability to the security and development of either player. Israel, America, the Arab and Muslim world should be more united so as not to leave a solvable conflict turn into an ignored pandemic.