Middle East’s intractable divide

Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan is far from the “deal of the century”, as the US President’s hyperbole suggests. Neither is it the “slap of the century”, as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas claims. And Mr Abbas, in boycotting the process, has himself to blame for its shortcomings from a Palestinian perspective. The plan, lauded as a “win-win opportunity for both sides” by Mr Trump, is more pro-Israel than previous US peace plans dating back to Oslo Accords in 1993. But the 80-page Peace to Prosperity blueprint is more thoughtful and offers more concessions to Palestinians than was anticipated.

The plan holds the promise of Palestinian statehood in four years; it more than doubles the territory under Palestinian control and it confirms that the future Palestinian capital would be in “parts of East Jerusalem”. In return, the Palestinians would be expected to renounce terrorism and halt the activities of terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The latter, funded heavily by Iran, controls Gaza. Palestinians also would be required to acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Given the refusal of Mr Abbas and his colleagues to have anything to do with the Trump administration since the US’s 2017 recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, they are likely to refuse.

To allow for negotiations, the plan calls for a four-year freeze on the construction of Israeli settlements. But the proviso that “no Palestinians or Israeli will be uprooted from their homes” suggests existing Jewish settlements in the West Bank would remain. Israel would be allowed to annex up to a third of the West Bank. But the Palestinians would receive land swaps and $US50bn ($74bn) worth of investment, and would be allowed a form of demilitarised self-rule. Gaza and the West Bank would be linked by high-speed rail. The plan would give Israel sovereignty over the hill known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif. But Israel would work with the king of Jordan to preserve the status quo governing the holy site.

While far short of what the Palestinians demand, the plan would serve as a starting point. This is why Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have welcomed it as a basis for ending six years of paralysis and resuming negotiations, that were suspended by Mr Abbas in 2014 during Barack Obama’s presidency. In the interim, offers by Israel of negotiations without preconditions have been ignored.

Mr Trump’s plan has the backing of Israeli opposition leader Benny Gantz, who could be Israel’s leader after the March 2 election. But it has drawn the condemnation of Iran, Turkey and Jordan. Even among supporters, political hardheads are highly sceptical, for good reason, that the plan will progress the current stalemate. Too often in the past, peace and pragmatism appeared anathema to the Palestinians’ DNA. In 2000, Bill Clinton brokered a deal in which Ehud Barak, the Israeli prime minister at the time, offered an independent state in all of Gaza and 95 per cent of the West Bank, with Israeli territory to be relinquished for the remaining 5 per cent. Palestine Liberation Organisation leader Yasser Arafat, unwilling to give up the struggle against Israel, rejected it. Palestinians followed up with a four-year suicide-bombing campaign against Israeli civilians. Twenty years on, the conflict remains seemingly intractable.