President Trump on Tuesday outlined a surprisingly serious peace plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Analysts expected a plan heavily weighted toward Israeli interests and thus likely to receive unequivocal Palestinian rejection. But this isn’t that. Trump’s proposal has issues, but it does chart a four-year path toward a two-state solution.
Supported by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his primary challenger in March elections, Benny Gantz, it calls for a freeze on Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. That is a significant concession that will aggravate the Israeli hard-right. Muslims would also be assured of access to the al Aqsa Mosque under continuing Jordanian-led custodianship. And Trump is promising that Palestinian-controlled territory will double in size under this deal. A tunnel would also be built to connect Gaza with the West Bank. And, joining with a previously outlined plan, the Palestinians would receive up to $50 billion in economic investment. They would also gain access to Israeli port infrastructure.
On the Israeli side, the Jewish state will gain control over the Jordan River valley: a prerequisite of Israel’s long-term security strategy. In return for land swaps, Israel would also receive sovereignty over major settlement blocs in the West Bank. This was always going to be a part of any deal, and everyone who cares to be honest knows it.
What is not clear, and would reflect unseriousness, is whether this plan allows all Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including smaller settlements, to remain. Based on Trump’s comments that “no Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes,” that might indeed be the case.
Another complication is that the deal’s assurance of Israeli security would obviously require Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad to cease to exist. That’s a good thing, of course, but how it could be implemented over four years is not clear. It would appear to require a Palestinian Authority agreement with Israel to disentangle Hamas from Gaza’s political structure. Would that involve a joint military operation in Gaza?
Less clear is Jerusalem’s status. Trump said that the Palestinians would gain a capital in Jerusalem but also that the city would remain Israel’s undivided capital. Perhaps Trump means that the Palestinian Authority would gain a grant of sovereignty in certain specific areas. Detail is needed here, but the grant idea could work.
Still, this is a serious proposal overall. It recognizes Palestinian needs for land, investment, and sovereignty and Israel’s need for security. It also offers four years for both sides to dig into the details. Will the Palestinians and Arab nations accept the framework?
Some will, but Palestinian support is unlikely. But this isn’t a joke of a deal, nor nearly as one-sided as was presumed. Presenting that seriousness in pursuit of peace, Trump deserves credit.
