The deal of the century: Recipe for terror
By: Hamza Ali Shah
Executive summary:
Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law and senior advisor, as well Jason Greenblatt, the Middle East peace envoy, recently completed a multi-national tour of the Middle East, in order to lay the groundwork for US President Donald Trump’s deal of the century for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Trump has employed mention of this alleged deal of the century in abundance. It comes at a time when conflict resolution is paramount, as the humanitarian situation in Gaza is exacerbating and Israel’s occupation strengthens, and yet nothing concrete has been presented.
Analysis:
Kushner professed that the Trump administration was ‘almost done’ (Halbfinger, 2018) preparing a peace deal, and stipulated that it would be presented soon. Whilst no specific details have been announced, suggestions are that this so-called deal of the century will include maintaining Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, no removal of Israeli settlements from the West Bank, and no return of the Palestinian refugees to their land (Goldenberg, 2018).
In fact, signals are that Kushner is preparing a proposition that will provide Palestinians with a political entity, less than a state, in Gaza, alongside some autonomy in insufficient parts of the West Bank. In addition, it is believed the US administration will offer a Palestinian capital in the East Jerusalem district of Abu Dis, as opposed to the entirety of East Jerusalem. Such an entity would not uphold the right of return for the refugees, and would not include the Jordan Valley, as it, alongside Jerusalem would remain under full Israeli sovereignty (Arnaout, 2018). Furthermore, Israel will not be expected to relinquish any of its illegally built West Bank settlements, and the Palestinian ‘state’ will remain completely disarmed, lacking any military capacity (Arnaout, 2018). Thus, such a proposal discards the Palestinian political objectives and fails to meet the basic demands.
Accordingly, the disregard of the Palestinian political goals would consolidate the US’s support for Israel’s right wing faction, essentially providing them with the green light to maintain their occupation, which would involve proceeding with annexing large chunks of the West Bank, a move that a number of politicians in Israel now openly advocate (Cook, 2018). In fact, under the current right wing Israeli government and a White House that has come down heavily on Israel’s side, the Israeli settler movement may never get a better opportunity to expand.
Conversely, Kushner’s narrative is one that signals intent to provide the Palestinians with a suitable arrangement. However, this appears speculative at best; Israel under the guidance of Netanyahu have overlooked any scenarios that include Palestinian acceptance from Israel. Netanyahu himself has stopped issuing support for a Palestinian state, and a majority of members of the current Israeli cabinet do not even support the creation of a Palestinian state (Gordon & Kumar, 2018). Hence, it is clear the current Israeli government is unlikely to make major compromises for any peace process (Cook, 2018).
Yet ironically, Kushner articulated that substantial time had been paid in trying to construct a deal which would be representative of what the Palestinian ‘people actually want’ (Halbfinger, 2018), and alluded to an economic plan. Such a plan would include “attracting very significant investments in infrastructure from the public and private sectors to make the whole region more connected and to stimulate the economies of the future. This will lead to increases in GDP and we also hope that a blanket of peaceful coexistence can allow the governments to divert some of their funds from heavy investments in military and defence into better education, services and infrastructure for their people” (Abu Zalaf, 2018).
However, references to such an economic plan appear to be an example of Kushner diverting attention away from the real struggles of the Palestinian people and disregarding the need for a political solution by attempting to compensate with an economic plan. It is laudable to promote much-needed economic development in the West Bank and Gaza, but Kushner should know that should be in correspondence with political peace, as opposed to substitution.
Indeed, any economic plan will not minimize the urgent need to address the fundamental issues that remain and yet appear to be dismissed, such as sovereignty; security; settlements and occupation; refugees; and Jerusalem, as well as the worsening predicament in Gaza, which includes a collapsed economy, decaying electrical and water infrastructure, and deteriorating health conditions. In fact, the predicament in Gaza was only worsened when the administration cut financial assistance for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which supports Palestinian refugees with food supply, access to education, healthcare, social services and employment.
Contrastingly, the optimistic tone that was employed by Kushner suggests he thinks the Trump administration is best suited to provide a solution to the conflict that none of his predecessors could. This indicates that Trump, Kushner and co will deploy the objectivity required to mediate such an acute conflict.
However, Trump has abandoned any objectivity relating to Israel and the Palestinians. He gave Israel its most coveted prize in negotiations, with the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, which essentially ended his countries neutrality on the issue, as well as two-decades of commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. (Elgindy, 2018). This was despite the stern opposition he faced at the United Nations, when 128 countries voted against it.
Moreover, Kushner professed that regarding the role of the Arab leaders in the peace process, the prospect of their involvement is very much alive (Halbfinger, 2018). However, observers suggest even that is hopeful (Goldenberg, 2018). The sensitivity of the Jerusalem issue means it is not solely a Palestinian problem. Hence, with Jerusalem off the negotiating table, Arab leaders will be wary of upholding any deal alongside the US because it will be considered an act of betrayal, and may trigger violence, terror and unrest in the region, which will not be of any benefit to anyone. (Heinrich, 2018)
Furthermore, many regional leaders share with Israel a common strategic perspective on Iran, which has taken precedence over the Palestinian cause. Therefore, the changing Middle Eastern dynamics have created new priorities for Arab rulers and opened up new opportunities for regional alliances, and in the process made the Palestinian conflict secondary (Sharnoff, 2018).
Resultantly, it is wishful thinking to expect the Arab States to do anything different from what they have routinely done for years and just pay the cause lip service. Whenever a U.S. president or secretary of state asks for their support in pushing a new U.S. plan, they have always shown support but neither followed through with meaningful positive incentives for the Palestinians or applied genuine political pressure (Goldenberg, 2018). Thus, the references that Kushner made relating to the major role Arab states can play in a peace plan for the Palestinians appear to lack substance. For years, the Palestinian subject matter has been neglected and it is unlikely that will change now, especially as several countries will be wary of the security threats that may advance, and are concurrently plagued with their own internal issues and are concerned with the threat of Iran.
Conclusion:
Much has been made about the alleged deal of the century for several months, yet nothing has been exhibited. The decision to grant Israel Jerusalem as their capital essentially concluded decade’s worth of peace efforts and neglected the Palestinian political goals, such as the right of return, the need for a Palestinian state and the removal of Israeli illegal settlers from the West Bank. Therefore, mentions of the manufacturing of the ‘ultimate deal’ and an economic plan are just disguises for the continuation of the Israeli occupation. Additionally, mentions of Arab involvement in assisting the Palestinians are premature. Any Arab championing of a US deal now will be seen as betrayal because of the elimination of Jerusalem and its ardent implications, and may induce unrest in the region. Hence, for the sake of their security interests, it is unlikely the Arabs will play any role. Overall, just as most proposals presented to the Palestinians in recent times, the current administrations standpoint lacks substance and any real chance of successful implementation, is an endorsement of the Israeli perspective and displays negligence for the Palestinian objectives.
Bibliography
Abu Zalaf, W., 2018. Al Quds. [Online]
Available at: http://www.alquds.com/articles/1529795861841079700/
[Accessed Tuesday June 2018].
Arnaout, A. R., 2018. Andalou Agency. [Online]
Available at: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-peace-plan-fails-to-meet-key-arab-demands-analysts/1189118
[Accessed Friday June 2018].
Cook, S. A., 2018. Council on Foreign Relations. [Online]
Available at: https://www.cfr.org/blog/israel-moves-annex-west-bank-how-two-state-solution-dies
[Accessed Wednesday June 2018].
Elgindy, K., 2018. The Nationa Interest. [Online]
Available at: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-the-peace-process-probably-killed-the-two-state-solution-25219
[Accessed Tuesday July 2018].
Goldenberg, I., 2018. Foreign Policy. [Online]
Available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/06/25/kushners-peace-plan-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-israel-palestine-trump/
[Accessed Wednesday June 2018].
Gordon, P. & Kumar, P., 2018. The Atlantic. [Online]
Available at: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/06/kushner-israeli-palestinian-peace-plan/563606/
[Accessed Wednesday June 2018].
Halbfinger, D. M., 2018. New York Times. [Online]
Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/world/middleeast/kushner-abbas-peace-deal-israel.html
[Accessed Tuesday June 2018].
Heinrich, M., 2018. Reuters. [Online]
Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-jerusalem-reaction/arabs-europe-u-n-reject-trumps-recognition-of-jerusalem-as-israeli-capital-idUSKBN1E0312
[Accessed Tuesday July 2018].
Sharnoff, M., 2018. Washington Post. [Online]
Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/01/03/iran-has-driven-israel-and-the-gulf-arab-states-together/?utm_term=.27aea159fe3e
[Accessed Friday June 2018].
