TUNIS — US President Donald Trump disclosed his much anticipated Middle East peace plan January 28, outlining a two-state vision that would grant Israel new coveted territory and hamstring any future Palestinian state.
As expected, the blueprint to end one of the world’s most intractable conflicts was immediately dismissed by Palestinian leaders as one-sided, making the prospect of any negotiated settlement unlikely.
But the deal did put forward a framework that some Arab countries said could work as a “starting point” — including eventual Palestinian statehood with a $50 billion development plan and a temporary freeze of Israeli settlements. The provisions would also provide for a Palestinian capital on outer portions of East Jerusalem, such as the suburb of Abu Dis, and maintain the status quo at the central Jewish and Muslim holy sites known as the temple mount, or “Haram al-Sharif.”
For Israel, the deal would help achieve a series of longstanding objectives, including full sovereignty over the disputed city of Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and settlement blocs within the West Bank. It would also assuage their security concerns by forbidding Palestine from developing a military or forging military or security ties with states not approved by Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, standing by Trump in the White House as the US president unveiled the deal, said the plan was a “historic breakthrough” and hoped to act on its parameters as soon as possible. He vowed to move forward on plans to annex the Jordan Valley and settlements within the West Bank, which Israel’s parliament is set to hold a vote on in several weeks.
The plan was not universally lauded by Israelis, however, receiving pushback from some right-wing settlers who objected to the prospect of any future Palestinian state at all.
“We can’t agree to a plan that includes forming a Palestinian state, which will constitute a threat to Israel and a great danger to the future,” said David Elhayani, head of the Yesha Council that represents settlers in the West Bank, highlighting a divergence of views among Israeli hardliners.
Some US allies in the West lent moderate support to the proposal, with UK Foreign Minister Dominic Raab calling it a “serious proposal” and urging Palestinians “to give these plans genuine and fair consideration.”
The European Union was more cautious, saying only that the initiative “provides an occasion to re-launch the urgently needed efforts towards a negotiated and viable solution.”
The deal drew stinging criticism from some of Trump’s Democratic opponents in the US, however, who are in the midst of a tough primary race ahead of presidential elections this year.
US Senator Bernie Sanders, a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, said the deal was “unacceptable” and would “perpetuate the conflict, and undermine the security interests of Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians.”
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, also a contender for the Democratic nomination, called the deal a “sham” that was geared at accelerating Israeli annexation. “Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state,” said Warren. “…I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form — and reverse any policy that supports it.”
But the issue was predictably most contentious in the Arab and Muslim world, where the US has aggressively lobbied for support from some governments traditionally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
The United Arab Emirates Saudi Arabia and Egypt, all strong US allies, issued statements granting some legitimacy to the US effort.
The UAE’s Ambassador to the US said the plan was an “important starting point for a return to negotiations,” while Egypt’s foreign ministry said the proposal warranted “thorough consideration.”
Officials from Iran, Turkey, Lebanon’s Hezbollah movement and Yemen’s Houthis, however, were all deeply critical of the deal.
Some analysts said the deal seemed less achieved at securing a real solution than at jumpstarting Israeli annexation and shifting the parameters of any future negotiations, even as it included more concessions to Palestinians than had been anticipated.
“Front-loading the annexation seems to destroy the plan on the very day it’s released,” David Makovsky, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told the New York Times. “It reaffirms the worst fears that this is more an annexation plan than a peace plan.”
Palestinian leaders from all sides were equally pessimistic. Angered by a process they believe has been stacked against them from the start and hopeful that more favourable conditions could be reached under a future US Democratic administration, all major Palestinian representatives came out against the plan.
“When we are united, neither Netanyahu nor Trump dares to take away our rights,” said senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya after a rare meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.
Meanwhile, thousands took to the streets in the besieged enclave of Gaza to denounce the US administration’s proposal, and greater unrest is expected if Israel proceed with annexation plans.
Stephen Quillen is an Arab Weekly correspondent in Tunis.
Copyright ©2020 The Arab Weekly — distributed by Agence Global
—————-
Released: 30 January 2020
Word Count: 809
—————-