Analysing Trump’s Middle East Peace Plan
First published 26th February 2020
by Alexander Gale
Middle East| Understanding Your World | Operating in Foreign Environments
On 28 January, President Donald Trump unveiled his ‘vision for peace, prosperity and a brighter future for Israelis [and] Palestinians’. Trump was joined by the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who keenly supports the plan. However, one side was noticeably absent from the announcement in Washington DC — the Palestinians.
Palestinian leaders have refused to engage with the Trump administration since Washington recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in late 2017. Trump’s latest heavily one-sided proposals will only further cement Palestinian suspicions that the US is no longer an honest broker in the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian National Authority, has flatly rejected the plan.
How the plan favours Israel
Even at a glance, it quickly becomes apparent why many Palestinians perceive the plan to be a glaring insult. Although the plan proposes a two-state solution, it prioritises Israeli security over Palestinian statehood and self-determination.
According to the plan, the US would recognise Israeli settlements built in breach of international law in the West Bank. It would also grant Israel the Jordan Valley, on the basis that it is ‘critical for Israel’s national security’.
The State of Palestine would have its borders drawn to resemble the pre-1967 territorial boundaries, although Washington does not believe that Israel is legally obligated to give up 100 percent of this territory to a new Palestinian state. Palestinian borders drawn according to this plan would likely confine the new state to a territorial space smaller than that of previous peace proposals, or indeed the pre-1967 borders.
As ever, Jerusalem remains a key point of contention. Trump has proclaimed that the holy city will be Israel’s ‘undivided capital’. Crucially, Trump has offered the Palestinians eastern Jerusalem, not east Jerusalem. This is an important differentiation because practically any feasible proposal for an independent Palestinian state includes east Jerusalem as its capital. It is instead implied that a Palestinian capital would be relegated to the eastern suburban outskirts of Jerusalem. Trump’s 181-page plan further specifies that this area would be Abu Dis and that the Palestinians would be free to rename the area Al Quds, the Arabic name for Jerusalem.
The plan also fails to satisfy Palestinian security aspirations. It reads, ‘The State of Palestine shall be fully demilitarized and remain so’. Instead, Israeli forces would ‘maintain overriding security responsibility for the State of Palestine’, although Palestinians would be able to take responsibility for their internal security. Given the long history of conflict between the two groups, it is incredibly unlikely that any of the leading Palestinian groups, least of all those in Gaza, would acquiesce to this arrangement.
Rationale behind the plan
Trump’s most fierce critics have tended to portray his foreign policies as the random whims of an incompetent egomaniac. However, the peace plan has a certain rationale behind it, in line with the Trump administration’s regional strategy for the Middle East.
Presently, Washington’s greatest concern in the region is balancing against Tehran; but pushing back against Iranian influence is no easy task, even less so if US forces withdraw entirely from the region.
Middle Eastern regional competition is largely defined by a tripolar division of power between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter two, like the US, perceive an Iranian threat and wish to prevent Tehran from solidifying its power further in the region. The Trump administration has likely concluded that they can leverage Israel and Saudi Arabia together to balance against Iran.
In light of Israel’s strategic value to Washington, the peace plan grants Israel a slew of advantages at the expense of the Palestinians. Trump’s team have ignored any moral quandaries in favour of cold hard realpolitik, in which the Palestinians are of little strategic value to American interests.
For the most part, even the Arab states have abandoned any real attempts to champion the Palestinian cause. Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Camp David Accords which followed, Israel’s neighbours have increasingly treated it as a permanent actor in the region. Although Arab leaders play lip service to the Palestinian struggle, this is only to placate their domestic audiences. Several conflicts against an immovable Israel have proven too costly and Iran is now seen as a greater threat by many of the Arab states, particularly the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Ambassadors from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman and Bahrain were all present at the reveal of Trump’s peace plan. The Gulf states, especially, are wary of alienating the US for fear of being left alone to face Iran. Meanwhile, open alliances with Israel are still out of the question, but privately many Arab leaders seem to be swayed by the rationale that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For these reasons, the Trump administration may have felt more at ease proposing a peace settlement which overtly favours Israel.
Doomed to Failure?
Although the Palestinians may find themselves increasingly powerless, the US and Israel will not be able to implement this plan without encountering serious obstacles.
Ultimately, the proposals will utterly fail to bring about any kind of peace because there is not even the slightest semblance of consent from the Palestinian people. If Israel was to steam ahead with proposals to annex large swathes of land, the prospects for a violent reaction will be greatly heightened. The question as to whether Israel would act on the proposals will largely come down to whether the more cautious Israeli security community and Likud’s political opposition can restrain Netanyahu’s more expansionist tendencies.
There is also an overwhelming lack of international support. Arab leaders may increasingly view the Palestinian issue as a mere nuisance, but overtly supporting Israel remains a dangerous prospect. To do so would place their domestic support in a position of jeopardy. On the weekend following Trump and Netanyahu’s joint announcement, the Arab League declared that they would not support the plan.
Even Saudi Arabia, Oman and UAE have not come out in resounding support for Trump’s plan. Instead they have meekly praised Trump’s efforts to bring about peace, without commenting on any of the plan’s actual content.
If Trump was hoping to find support in Europe, he will be disappointed. The European Union rejected the plan and its foreign policy chief Josep Borrell expressed that EU member states, ‘are especially concerned by statements on the prospect of annexation of the Jordan Valley and other parts of the West Bank’. Unsurprisingly, the EU and other US allies are becoming increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s preference for sudden unilateral actions.
Prospects for the plan’s implementation are questionable. Presently, it will serve Trump and Netanyahu as useful foreign policy distractions from their domestic political troubles. Trump has just been acquitted for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress and Netanyahu has been charged with fraud and breach of trust. Both men will be hoping to claim foreign policy victories before they face elections.
Without any enthusiasm from the Palestinian side, a two-state solution is unlikely to come about as a result of this plan. However, an emboldened Israel may press ahead with some of its territorial ambitions in the West Bank. This will largely depend on election cycles in both Israel and the US. If Trump and Netanyahu remain in power, the latter may feel empowered to extend Israeli authority more formally in settled areas. In the past, Washington has been more careful to restrain Israel’s expansionist impulses, but this has not been the case during Trump’s tenure.
