The “deal of the century” is here, and as one comment in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz puts it, it is dead on arrival. A “plan” for peace that invites only one side to its announcement ceremony is not a peace plan. A plan that does not explain how to proceed after the announcement is not workable. It seems to be yet another of those strange Trump declarations on the international stage. Again - as always with Trump - it is very much oriented towards the domestic right-wing groups who are his most loyal voters, including evangelical Christians.
In short, it is a proposal in support of the expansionist policy of Netanyahu and Co. It is grotesque that a government or president of one country would allow another country to violate international law so blatantly. It allows - or even invites - the Israeli government to annex Palestinian territory. It is as if the US President would allow Russia to annex Ukraine. And it is even possible that Trump would be prepared to do that, assuming he could win votes in exchange.
The Palestinians naturally rejected the plan immediately and have organized demonstrations against the proposal. Most Arab countries rejected the invitation of the White House to attend the unveiling of the plan, including Saudi Arabia. But rejection alone is no policy. A united policy from the Arab side - as difficult it may be - to bring the aspirations and hopes of the Palestinians into line with realities on the ground is still missing.
There is, however, one positive element to the plan. The Trump proposal does in fact foresee a Palestinian state, so I am curious to observe the reaction in Israel, especially on the right. As a comment by Noa Landau in Haaretz puts it: “Who would have believed that Benjamin Netanyahu, of all people, would stand alongside an American President at the White House and announce his willingness to negotiate over establishing a Palestinian state in 70% of the West Bank, with a capital in the neighborhood of East Jerusalem and incessantly call it a “historic day’?”
Nevertheless, it is true that the Palestinian state would be territory composed of small “Bantustans”. It would be limited in its sovereignty, and Israel would always have the stronger position. But this is already the case now, and no plan can change that in the medium term. What is most important now is to look into citizens' rights, from the right to move to the availability of sufficient land, water, and jobs. For ordinary Palestinians, it is important to get the chance to live a decent life.
And that should also be the central argument of the European reaction. The one good thing about the plan is its agreement to establish a Palestinian state with its own territory and its own capital. Unfortunately, Trump and his team did not have the sensibility to consider Palestinians' affiliation to Jerusalem. But that was already clear before, following his decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Jerusalem remains a core issue of contention and must be included in any negotiations.
The EU should immediately come forward with a critical position concerning this plan that goes beyond repeating old mantras. It would have to take up the few positive elements of the plan and propose a procedure for bilateral talks between Israelis and Palestinians with international participation. But I fear that with all the right-wing friends that Netanyahu has cultivated inside the EU, it will be ever more difficult to reach a common position.
What we have witnessed is that from one peace plan or agreement to the next, the Palestinian cause continues to lose support and territory. That should be a warning to all those who reject any form of negotiation. If Arab countries and Europe could convince the Palestinian leadership to prepare itself for future negotiations, it could build a strong basis for serious talks. And if Russia would support such an initiative, that would be even better. The Arabs would necessarily have to concentrate on another issue than simply fighting against Iran. For the present, Israel and the US continue to use the dispute to forge an anti-Iran alliance with Arab countries and distract them from the Palestinian issue.
Yes, the Trump plan is far from a just solution. But I do not see any just solution in the near future or even beyond. All the same, Palestinian citizens want to live a decent life, and young people in particular long for an end to the daily obstacles and harassment that they face. Needless to say, the economic offers of President Trump in exchange for accepting the plan are hypocritical and insulting. On the other hand, economic support could help to create a viable economy and jobs.
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.