Trump’s Peace Plan Is Immoral, Impractical—and Could Blow Up the Middle East

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

Kobi Gideon/Getty Images

OPINION

Trump’s Peace Plan Is Immoral, Impractical—and Could Blow Up the Middle East

By AMI AYALON, GILEAD SHER and ORNI PETRUSCHKA


June 24, 2019

Ami Ayalon is former director of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet.

Gilead Sher, former chief of staff for Prime Minister Ehud Barak and senior Israeli peace negotiator, heads Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies’ Center for Applied Negotiations.

Orni Petruschka is a high-tech entrepreneur in Israel. They are co-founders of the Israeli NGO Blue White Future and principals of Molad, an Israeli think tank.

It sounds great on paper: The U.S. administration will hold a “peace to prosperity” economic workshop in Bahrain on June 25 and 26 to jumpstart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Yet scratch the shiny PR surface and you’ll find a dangerously simplistic approach to a complicated situation. Anybody who followed the last 30 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict understands that President Donald Trump’s announcement of this first step on the way to a deal is all form and no substance: a new name for the same failed idea known as “economic peace,” and before that as “a new Middle East.”

Putting economics first, before a political process, is more than a tactical error, yet another in a long line of failed attempts to advance towards a permanent two-state solution. The Trump administration’s focus on economics—led by Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner—is a strategic mistake that could stymie the negotiations before they begin. If Trump and his team studied history, they would know that placing economics before core political issues is a slap in the face to the Palestinians. Of course, the Palestinians want to improve their quality of life; of course they want to build a growing economy. But these are secondary goals, to be pursued after self-determination is achieved. If the Palestinians could be “bought” with economic benefits, we would be long past the need for talks. Trump’s approach is not only immoral, it is impractical.

The truth is that economics were never enough to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Paris Agreement, which followed the Oslo Accords—a set of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed in the 1990s that were never implemented to the letter—focused on economics, and it did not salvage the deterioration of the security situation that resulted in the second intifada, a bloody 4-year Palestinian revolt against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Neither the first nor the second intifadas broke out for economic reasons (the Palestinian economy was not faring badly, relatively speaking). They erupted because the way forward was unclear, and because the Palestinians felt that the economic benefits offered would not lead to the end of the occupation. High hopes for trust-building had been dashed against the absence of a political plan to end the conflict. This void nurtured despair and disappointment, leading to angry uprisings that cost many lives on both sides.

That is the very real danger we are facing again. By putting economics first while ignoring the end game, Trump is repeating a colossal mistake: resuming talks without defining the end goal. For both Palestinians and Israelis, that goal should be ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel within 1967 borders, with necessary land swaps. Unless both parties and the mediating power state this clearly at the outset, the expectations gap will breed mistrust. Thus, sitting down together will be futile. This will lead to further disillusionment—and escalating violence. Unless the goal of the talks is explicitly defined as ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state, more lives will be lost.

Moreover, there will be no Jewish and democratic state without resolving the Palestinian issue.

The problem is that once Trump’s deal hits the table, it will be hard to ignore. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will have to respond. This will place Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, already considered a collaborator with Israel by most Palestinians, in a dangerous bind. He will not able to accept a deal that blatantly ignores Palestinian national aspirations, yet rejecting it will paint him as resisting peace. Domestic pressure may force him to stop cooperating with Israel on security, which will lead to a hike in terrorism. The path from there to igniting the entire area would be short, as the painful history of the conflict shows.

A Middle East explosion could be ignited by another conflict point: the rapidly escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which is connected to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The best way to effectively confront Iran is via a regional coalition of relatively moderate Sunni regimes, headed by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, with tacit participation of Israel. But forming such a coalition is not possible unless a credible political process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is underway; Arab people will not tolerate cooperation with Israel without it. Thus, for the Trump administration, which views confronting Iran as a key foreign policy objective, a plan that establishes this process should be critically important.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yet it is not clear whether Trump’s intentions are good or merely seek to do Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a political favor. Presenting Abbas with an impossible choice will allow Netanyahu to win another round of the blame game and accuse the Palestinians of backing away from a good deal, playing into Netanyahu’s electoral base that rejects a two-state solution. But the result may be more death and an escalation that would delay constructive talks—and a Mideast anti-Iran coalition—for years.

To end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, protect Israelis and Palestinians, and prevent more bloodshed and greater instability in the Middle East, Trump’s dangerous “economics first” approach should be discarded—and, if not, opposed.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/24/trump-peace-plan-middle-east-227209

 

[CrazyZ]

I'm not sure what options the Palestinians have. No viable Arab military threat to Israel exists. The Isreali's have already killed a viable Palestinian state through land annexations. I think the Americans are trying to copy China's BRI initiative to reduce their decline of influence in the ME.

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

I'm not sure what options the Palestinians have. No viable Arab military threat to Israel exists. The Isreali's have already killed a viable Palestinian state through land annexations. I think the Americans are trying to copy China's BRI initiative to reduce their decline of influence in the ME.

How can Arabs (divided into 20 + nation states) let alone Muslims be a military threat to Israel when Israel is an extension of the US/West and armed with nuclear weapons and allowed to do everything they please without any consequences? The are a different set of rules for Israel. Whenever the average Arab or Muslim country is blamed by the West for "human rights abuses" weapons embargoes, sanctions etc. are often used but Israel can built illegal settlements at will and do what they are doing without anyone of those Western states saying let alone doing anything about it.

Countries like Germany are even donating submarines and other highly sophisticated military tech to Israel for free, lol.

Israel itself is a Western creation, the modern version of it and its ideology (Zionism) is a recent political construct created in Europe and now mostly kept alive and backed 100% by the powerful Jewish lobby based in the US that controls every US administration directly or indirectly. Let alone the American deep state.

But let us be serious for a while here. Israel is trapped. Yes, think about it. Either they welcome more Palestinians into their country (if they say annex more territory or all of Palestine) and thus cease to be a Jewish state as "Israeli Arabs" and Palestinians outnumber Israeli Jews or a return to 1967. The apartheid version cannot work for much longer.

As the article rightly states:

That is the very real danger we are facing again. By putting economics first while ignoring the end game, Trump is repeating a colossal mistake: resuming talks without defining the end goal. For both Palestinians and Israelis, that goal should be ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel within 1967 borders, with necessary land swaps. Unless both parties and the mediating power state this clearly at the outset, the expectations gap will breed mistrust. Thus, sitting down together will be futile. This will lead to further disillusionment—and escalating violence. Unless the goal of the talks is explicitly defined as ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state, more lives will be lost.
​

Moreover, there will be no Jewish and democratic state without resolving the Palestinian issue.​

 

[CrazyZ]

Their is nothing for the Israelis in this proposal. The Israelis can maintain the status quo.

No viable Palestinian state. No viable military threat. No combined Arab-Jewish state diluting the Zionist project. They already receive plenty of USA economic assistance.

 

[The SC]

How can Arabs (divided into 20 + nation states) let alone Muslims be a military threat to Israel when Israel is an extension of the US/West and armed with nuclear weapons and allowed to do everything they please without any consequences? The are a different set of rules for Israel. Whenever the average Arab or Muslim country is blamed by the West for "human rights abuses" weapons embargoes, sanctions etc. are often used but Israel can built illegal settlements at will and do what they are doing without anyone of those Western states saying let alone doing anything about it.

Countries like Germany are even donating submarines and other highly sophisticated military tech to Israel for free, lol.

Israel itself is a Western creation, the modern version of it and its ideology (Zionism) is a recent political construct created in Europe and now mostly kept alive and backed 100% by the powerful Jewish lobby based in the US that controls every US administration directly or indirectly. Let alone the American deep state.

But let us be serious for a while here. Israel is trapped. Yes, think about it. Either they welcome more Palestinians into their country (if they say annex more territory or all of Palestine) and thus cease to be a Jewish state as "Israeli Arabs" and Palestinians outnumber Israeli Jews or a return to 1967. The apartheid version cannot work for much longer.

As the article rightly states:

That is the very real danger we are facing again. By putting economics first while ignoring the end game, Trump is repeating a colossal mistake: resuming talks without defining the end goal. For both Palestinians and Israelis, that goal should be ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel within 1967 borders, with necessary land swaps. Unless both parties and the mediating power state this clearly at the outset, the expectations gap will breed mistrust. Thus, sitting down together will be futile. This will lead to further disillusionment—and escalating violence. Unless the goal of the talks is explicitly defined as ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state, more lives will be lost.

Moreover, there will be no Jewish and democratic state without resolving the Palestinian issue.​

I have something important about Israel's existence coming soon..

 

[ZAC1]

redheifer is about to be burnt in Al Aqsa... one year n half year left apprx

 

[tower9]

I'm not sure what options the Palestinians have. No viable Arab military threat to Israel exists. The Isreali's have already killed a viable Palestinian state through land annexations. I think the Americans are trying to copy China's BRI initiative to reduce their decline of influence in the ME.

The Palestinians have an exceptionally weak hand here, they really have almost no recourse except for threatening another Intifada, which is not going to be more than a mere irritant to Israel.

Kushner knows this so he will push this plan which will basically demand a complete capitulation on the part of the Palestinians, accepting a near reservation status with their remaining lands completely balkanized and dominated by Israeli settlements, all up for renegotiation in the future as they expand even.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Likud begin formally pushing for a program of population transfer within the next 20 years.

Their is nothing for the Israelis in this proposal. The Israelis can maintain the status quo.

No viable Palestinian state. No viable military threat. No combined Arab-Jewish state diluting the Zionist project. They already receive plenty of USA economic assistance.

It's basically just a formal acceptance of surrender on the part of the Palestinians. Of course they will reject it and the Israelis, Kushner and Trump can claim that they offered an "amazing peace deal" and it was rejected.

 

[sammuel]

Kobi Gideon/Getty Images

OPINION

Trump’s Peace Plan Is Immoral, Impractical—and Could Blow Up the Middle East

By AMI AYALON, GILEAD SHER and ORNI PETRUSCHKA


June 24, 2019

Ami Ayalon is former director of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet.

Gilead Sher, former chief of staff for Prime Minister Ehud Barak and senior Israeli peace negotiator, heads Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies’ Center for Applied Negotiations.

Orni Petruschka is a high-tech entrepreneur in Israel. They are co-founders of the Israeli NGO Blue White Future and principals of Molad, an Israeli think tank.

It sounds great on paper: The U.S. administration will hold a “peace to prosperity” economic workshop in Bahrain on June 25 and 26 to jumpstart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Yet scratch the shiny PR surface and you’ll find a dangerously simplistic approach to a complicated situation. Anybody who followed the last 30 years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict understands that President Donald Trump’s announcement of this first step on the way to a deal is all form and no substance: a new name for the same failed idea known as “economic peace,” and before that as “a new Middle East.”

Putting economics first, before a political process, is more than a tactical error, yet another in a long line of failed attempts to advance towards a permanent two-state solution. The Trump administration’s focus on economics—led by Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner—is a strategic mistake that could stymie the negotiations before they begin. If Trump and his team studied history, they would know that placing economics before core political issues is a slap in the face to the Palestinians. Of course, the Palestinians want to improve their quality of life; of course they want to build a growing economy. But these are secondary goals, to be pursued after self-determination is achieved. If the Palestinians could be “bought” with economic benefits, we would be long past the need for talks. Trump’s approach is not only immoral, it is impractical.

The truth is that economics were never enough to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Paris Agreement, which followed the Oslo Accords—a set of agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization signed in the 1990s that were never implemented to the letter—focused on economics, and it did not salvage the deterioration of the security situation that resulted in the second intifada, a bloody 4-year Palestinian revolt against Israel’s occupation of the West Bank. Neither the first nor the second intifadas broke out for economic reasons (the Palestinian economy was not faring badly, relatively speaking). They erupted because the way forward was unclear, and because the Palestinians felt that the economic benefits offered would not lead to the end of the occupation. High hopes for trust-building had been dashed against the absence of a political plan to end the conflict. This void nurtured despair and disappointment, leading to angry uprisings that cost many lives on both sides.

That is the very real danger we are facing again. By putting economics first while ignoring the end game, Trump is repeating a colossal mistake: resuming talks without defining the end goal. For both Palestinians and Israelis, that goal should be ending the occupation and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel within 1967 borders, with necessary land swaps. Unless both parties and the mediating power state this clearly at the outset, the expectations gap will breed mistrust. Thus, sitting down together will be futile. This will lead to further disillusionment—and escalating violence. Unless the goal of the talks is explicitly defined as ending the conflict and establishing a Palestinian state, more lives will be lost.

Moreover, there will be no Jewish and democratic state without resolving the Palestinian issue.

The problem is that once Trump’s deal hits the table, it will be hard to ignore. Israel and the Palestinian Authority will have to respond. This will place Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, already considered a collaborator with Israel by most Palestinians, in a dangerous bind. He will not able to accept a deal that blatantly ignores Palestinian national aspirations, yet rejecting it will paint him as resisting peace. Domestic pressure may force him to stop cooperating with Israel on security, which will lead to a hike in terrorism. The path from there to igniting the entire area would be short, as the painful history of the conflict shows.

A Middle East explosion could be ignited by another conflict point: the rapidly escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, which is connected to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The best way to effectively confront Iran is via a regional coalition of relatively moderate Sunni regimes, headed by Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, with tacit participation of Israel. But forming such a coalition is not possible unless a credible political process aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is underway; Arab people will not tolerate cooperation with Israel without it. Thus, for the Trump administration, which views confronting Iran as a key foreign policy objective, a plan that establishes this process should be critically important.

As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Yet it is not clear whether Trump’s intentions are good or merely seek to do Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a political favor. Presenting Abbas with an impossible choice will allow Netanyahu to win another round of the blame game and accuse the Palestinians of backing away from a good deal, playing into Netanyahu’s electoral base that rejects a two-state solution. But the result may be more death and an escalation that would delay constructive talks—and a Mideast anti-Iran coalition—for years.

To end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, protect Israelis and Palestinians, and prevent more bloodshed and greater instability in the Middle East, Trump’s dangerous “economics first” approach should be discarded—and, if not, opposed.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/24/trump-peace-plan-middle-east-227209

Ami Ayalon is a serious person and i usually agree with what he has to say.

The timing of this plan is also miserable , as we are just before an election and nothing is going to happen before that.


~

 

[Mithridates]

How can Arabs (divided into 20 + nation states) let alone Muslims be a military threat to Israel when Israel is an extension of the US/West and armed with nuclear weapons

they have 10 million hostage in region, that Samson option and nukes are useless.

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

they have 10 million hostage in region, that Samson option and nukes are useless.

Not sure if I know what you mean?

Are you talking about the Palestinians? If so, yes. You cannot attack Israel with nukes or 10.000 of ballistic missile without killing a similar number of Palestinians due to how small Israel and Palestine are (land mass). Which is just another example of what I wrote in post 3.

Ami Ayalon is a serious person and i usually agree with what he has to say.

The timing of this plan is also miserable , as we are just before an election and nothing is going to happen before that.


~

I wonder, when and why the Likud became such a xenophobic and semi-fascist political party? I once read that this was not always the case.

Honestly, can you or any Israeli here reply to me how come those Israeli extremists who want to conquer Palestine and throw all Palestinians out of Palestine and Israel, plan to do that? There are probably (nowadays) more Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel than there are Jews.

What is the idea behind those illegal settlements in the West Bank?

 

[sammuel]

Not sure if I know what you mean?

I wonder, when and why the Likud became such a xenophobic and semi-fascist political party? I once read that this was not always the case.

Honestly, can you or any Israeli here reply to me how come those Israeli extremists who want to conquer Palestine and throw all Palestinians out of Palestine and Israel, plan to do that? There are probably (nowadays) more Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and Israel than there are Jews.

What is the idea behind those illegal settlements in the West Bank?

It is true that there have been a shift to the right in Israel ,

I can not relate to people who want to " throw out Palestinians " , there are a small minority that are not worth a comment. I remind you that one such party that preached such things was barred in the past from running to the Israeli Parliament. Settlers are another group who are a small minority.

But not all that vote Right are against a peace solution. Fact is that year of terror and specially the rockets from Gaza made them suspicious and worry of further Israeli concessions. They argue that parts we evacuate later become platforms for attacks against us.

They don't feel that at the moment there is someone on the other side to shake their hand , specially when the Palestinians dont have a unified leadership or someone authorized to close a deal in the name of all Palestinians,

But this does not mean it cant change , in the past when there was a foreseeable peace plan , there was a majority found for it, This is how Rabin and later Barak got elected.

~

 

[Mithridates]

Not sure if I know what you mean?

Are you talking about the Palestinians? If so, yes. You cannot attack Israel with nukes or 10.000 of ballistic missile without killing a similar number of Palestinians due to how small Israel and Palestine are (land mass). Which is just another example of what I wrote in post 3.

i mean if we besiege them they can't nuke us cause we can put together another holocaust.

 

[ArabianEmpires&Caliphates]

It is true that there have been a shift to the right in Israel ,

I can not relate to people who want to " throw out Palestinians " , there are a small minority that are not worth a comment. I remind you that one such party that preached such things was barred in the past from running to the Israeli Parliament. Settlers are another group who are a small minority.

But not all that vote Right are against a peace solution. Fact is that year of terror and specially the rockets from Gaza made them suspicious and worry of further Israeli concessions. They argue that parts we evacuate later become platforms for attacks against us.

They don't feel that at the moment there is someone on the other side to shake their hand , specially when the Palestinians dont have a unified leadership or someone authorized to close a deal in the name of all Palestinians,

But this does not mean it cant change , in the past when there was a foreseeable peace plan , there was a majority found for it, This is how Rabin and later Barak got elected.

~

The political shift to the right seems to have been a strong force within the Mizrahi Jews (most of them Arab Jews or Jews from Arab countries such as Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Morocco etc.) as well which has always been a bit of a paradox for me.

I have never visited Israel and I don't know a single Israeli Jew but Netanyahu openly claiming that Israel is only a state for Jews (maybe I got something wrong here) and this:

From the state's establishment in 1948, Standard Arabic was a co-official alongside Hebrew; this changed with the passing of the Basic Law: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People in 2018. Its status is currently that of an auxiliary language and its use in government documents and in the public sphere is still mandated by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_language_in_Israel
​

The illegal settlements are not stopped either and the problem (speaking about big or small minorities or groups of people) that the Israeli state under Likud rule have looked silently at those illegal settlements.

As long as the question of those settlements are not solved it is hard if not impossible for a two-state solution to be agreed upon let alone a return to the 1967 borders.

Yes, it is a problem that the Palestinians don't have a unified political stance in the form of a leader/movement that everyone could rally around but the situation and circumstances are not normal so it is not really strange.

The responsibility and duty is one the Israeli side (also the stronger) to reach an agreement, stop the illegal settlements and move those settlers back to Israel again and agree to the pre-1967 borders.

Either that or as some have talked about 1 state for both Jews and Palestinians but with equal rights and both Palestinian Muslim and Israeli Jewish at the same time. That option I don't consider realistic at all and not something that anyone but a minority would agree on so a two-state solution with the pre-1967 borders is the only realistic solution IMO in my eyes.

Unless you have better proposals as an Israeli.

i mean if we besiege them they can't nuke us cause we can put together another holocaust.

How will you besiege them? For 40 + years in a row, Iran has not yet attacked Israel directly. Hamas, Hezbollah (who do not do anything against Israel since 10+ years ago), Syria etc. is not Iran but actually various Arabs.

Murdering 6-7 million people is not realistic nor will it be accepted in today's world. You are talking about Jews as well who control the most powerful country (US) and you have almost every US politician/senator regardless of party line (democrats and republicans) talking about Israel as it was one of the US states.

Such policies (even if it could be done in a fantasy world) Iran would not do it as it would be suicide for Iran.

Also how are you planning to besiege Israel or firing missiles at Israel without hitting Palestine and killing many Palestinians in the process? Those are genuine questions that have no answers.

 

[sammuel]

Either that or as some have talked about 1 state for both Jews and Palestinians but with equal rights and both Palestinian Muslim and Israeli Jewish at the same time. That option I don't consider realistic at all and not something that anyone but a minority would agree on so a two-state solution with the pre-1967 borders is the only realistic solution IMO in my eyes.

Unless you have better proposals as an Israeli.

.

Nope , i don't see another solution ,

Maybe in the situation today we can't solve it all in one go but in the meantime need to take gradual steps to improve things - specially in Gaza where the conditions must be improved asp.

 

[Goku]

First of all Israel will never accept to return to pre1967 borders as they won six day war. 1948 peace settlement was the best option which the arabs rejected as they wanted total destruction of Israel. Now both Israel and Palestine need to look at the present and work out on mutually acceptable solution without the prejudices of the past