Eyad Abu Shakra
TT

Trump’s Initiative is a Bet on Palestinian Despair

Doubt was the hallmark of most views and comments expressed in the US, Europe and even Israel, on President Donald Trump’s plan to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Among the leading ‘doubters’ is former President Jimmy Carter, who was the sponsor of the ‘Camp David Accords’ and the most intimately involved in Middle East peace initiatives among all American leaders. Major influential US newspapers also have taken negative stances towards what has been dubbed as ‘the Deal of the Century’; the same applies to Israel’s Haaretz, which not only regarded the initiative “very bad”, but said that “Trump’s ‘Deal of the Century’ Was Written in a Way So the Palestinians Would Reject It. Maybe That Was the Plan” as its prominent headline.

I reckon Haaretz is right. The well-informed Israeli knows only too well who are behind the initiative. It also knows that its details force the Palestinians to choose between two evils; as they are in such a desperate situation that the two choices between moderation and obstinacy will lead to the same outcome, regardless of ‘attractive’ words.

Furthermore, most critics and doubters are aware how we have reached this situation, as follows:

1- Washington has never been ‘neutral’ between the two parties of the conflict, despite attempting to portray itself as an honest broker.

2- The Trump Administration had already taken steps and adopted a series of resolutions and positions that would undermine any notion of objectivity, let alone neutrality. Those begin with the ‘hyperactivity’ of an American ambassador who is also an Israeli national and a sympathizer with the Likud Party which calls for the ‘Jewishness of the State’ (The Law of Nationality), include Washington’s open warfare against UNRWA and closing down the PLO offices in the US, and culminate in the Administration going against UN resolutions about the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

3- Due to an exceptionally weak, besieged and divided Arab world, the Palestinian bargaining position is at an all-time low while the Israelis enjoy unprecedented arrogant and greedy strength. So instead of concentrating on confronting Likud’s expansionist plans that would eradicate any lingering hope of a viable ‘Palestinian state’, the Arabs are now facing a ruthless Iranian onslaught that is making many wonder which poses more threat to them, Iran or Israel? To many who are opposed to ‘political Islam’ the same is true of Turkey given its stances toward Libya and Egypt.

4- Internal divisions have also destroyed the ‘immunity’ of the Palestinians, who are now administratively divided between the Palestinian Authority’s West Bank, Hamas’ Gaza, and the Occupation’s Jerusalem. As the PA depends on Arab support, its ‘Islamist’ opponents rely on Tehran and Ankara, the ‘immunity’ is eroded further against a dire economic and developmental situation. Thus, given this mix of political and economic crises, blackmailing and cornering the Palestinians have never been easier.

Throughout the last few days a lot has been written about the drawbacks of the weirdly named ‘Deal of the Century.’ however, one of the best is an article in ‘The American Prospect’ by Daniel Levy. Levy is the president of the US/Middle East Project, based in New York and London, and is a former Israeli negotiator. He is also the son of Lord (Michael) Levy, a close associate of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his special envoy in the Middle East.

Under the title ‘Don’t Call It a Peace Plan’ he adds that there were ‘ten ways Trump has launched a relentless assault on the very idea of Israeli-Palestinian peace’, and explains:

1- The Initiative or ‘Peace Plan’ involves ‘good guys’ (i.e. the Israelis) and ‘bad guys’ (i.e. the Palestinians); however, “even terms of surrender have more chance of being durable if they are constructed in such a way as to maintain a semblance of dignity of the defeated party”. In Levy’s words, “a peace plan has to be predicated on both sides saving face, on both sides being able to declare some kind of victory”. Then says “it oozes colonialist supremacism. The text is drawn from the most unsophisticated and patronizing of Israeli PR talking points, an exclusivist narrative from start to finish… Israel’s military actions are always defensive. Its relinquishing of any occupied territory is a generous concession.”

2- The plan does not give the Palestinians a ‘state’, but “a patchwork of Palestinian islands best viewed alongside the map of South Africa’s apartheid-era Bantustans”. He goes on to say “Israel will control all security, territorial waters, airspace, and international crossings of this nonstate—and can even maintain a permanent naval blockade”. Then as regards Israel, he notes the Palestinian non-state will not have Jerusalem as its capital, for that is to remain the “undivided, sovereign capital of the State of Israel… The Palestinians can have outer Jerusalem neighborhoods on the other side of where Israel has erected its security barrier, but don’t despair, the Palestinians can call this noncapital by whatever name they like”.

3- The plan does not ask Israel to give up anything that it does not wish to. In Levy’s words “Israel is only asked to not do or give up things it has already declared no interest in. And if Israel should change its mind or should that not be enough, then there is a fallback; Israel can stop any implementation with the unilateral veto it is accorded in the plan”.

4- As for the treatment of the Palestinians, Levy notes that “the text asserts that there shall be no right of return by, or absorption of, any Palestinian refugee into the State of Israel (…) Not only that, but Israel can decide how many and which Palestinian refugees could take up residence in the new nonstate of Palestine (…) The rights of Palestinian refugees to immigrate into the State of Palestine shall be limited in accordance with agreed security arrangements … and regulated by various factors including increased security risks to the State of Israel”.

5- On the issue of security, control and assurances “only Israelis are worthy of security, so only Israel needs to have security capacities and control. The most far-reaching articulation of Israel’s security needs is embraced and then allowed to run wild throughout the document, with sideswipes taken at Palestinians wherever possible (…) With Israel in control of the land, sea, air, and border crossings, more should not be necessary”.

6- Regarding Gaza, “everything is the fault of the Palestinians. Gazans and the leadership in Gaza carry, we are told, the sole and exclusive responsibility for their circumstances. Israel is pristine, faultless. No conflict situation in the world works that way, and no attempt to resolve a conflict can make such an assertion”.

7- Economically, Levy sees “two minor problems” with the future heralded by the plan for the Palestinians. “First of all, it ain’t going to happen (…) A Palestinian economy that remains under occupation cannot flourish, and the plan fails to recognize this simple truism (…). The second problem is that this indulges in pure fantasy by treating the Palestinians not as a nation with collective national aspirations but as Homo economicus, a collection of individuals who make perfectly rational economic choices and whose horizons do not extend beyond economic opportunities for a better material life”.

8- Levy registers intentional humiliation of the Palestinians; saying, “This hateful text never misses an opportunity to degrade the Palestinians. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that this is intentional. For example, the only mention of respect for human rights in the document is as one of the preconditions that the Palestinians must meet before being granted their nonstate!”

9- “Israel as Judge and Jury”, says Levy, explaining that “Israel gets to decide everything, sometimes with the Americans. When it comes to moving toward the formation of the Palestinian nonstate on offer, the preconditions must be determined to have occurred by the State of Israel and the United States jointly, acting in good faith, after consultation with the Palestinian Authority”.

10- Levy, rounds up his ten points by saying that the “plan’s authors have one of two scenarios in mind, and those unsurprisingly offer a win-win for Israel. In one scenario, the plan is implemented in accordance with Israel’s interpretation, and it succeeds in formalizing Greater Israel alongside Palestinian Bantustans (…) The more likely scenario (one imagines intended by at least some of the plan’s architects) is that the Palestinians are blamed for rejecting the plan, and Israel together with the US moves ahead anyway in implementing its sovereignty and permanent control, perhaps beyond even what is envisaged in this document”.

If this is the view of an Israeli negotiator blessed with enough conscience, wisdom and hope of a viable peace; can one regard the Trump Initiative as anything but a move to undermine international legitimacy, and an official confirmation of an Israeli part policy devised to serve election purposes?