The Israel-Palestine peace plan - initial thoughts

The most interesting point to be made about it is that it looks like it was crafted and presented without  much interest in whether it would actually be implemented. When Jared Kushner held his first meetings about it, no Palestinians showed up. Since then, Palestinian weigh-in has consisted of denouncing it.

It seems to have been crafted with a recognition of two realities of the present-day Middle East:

• The US is allied with Israel and therefore isn't going to assume the role of a neutral arbiter, and
• The region has largely moved on from Israel-Palestine relations. A new bloc consisting of Israel and Sunni Arab nations has emerged, and countering the Iran-Turkey-Russia bloc is its main concern

The plan calls for a sovereign nation-state of Palestine. Its shape is rather distended, but what is to be done when this new country is going to be carved out of an existing sovereign nation-state? Jerusalem is, as Israeli politicians frequently point out, the eternal capital of the Jewish state. A portion of East Jerusalem that does not include the Temple Mount is about all that can be found for establishing a Palestinian capital. No existing Israeli settlements would be rolled back.

Some of its other terms are noteworthy as well. It calls for Hamas to be removed as the governing authority in Gaza, to be replaced by the Palestinian Authority. The right-of-return question is put to rest: there will be none.

The US has invited the Palestinians to sit at the negotiating table, using this plan as the basis for moving forward. My sense is that the US position is that it's no biggie if they don't accept:

President Trump’s posture is a classic take it or leave it. “Without (the Palestinians), we don't do the deal and that's okay,” he said. “If we do, it'll be a tremendous tribute to everybody. And if we don't, life goes on." For the Palestinians, life going on means diminishing control of territory, stifled economic development, faded relevance on the diplomatic stage, and generally watching as the world moves on without them.

The status quo is not ideal for the United States, Israel and the Arab states, but it is not intolerable either. The same cannot be said for the Palestinian Authority. Moving the peace plan forward to the negotiation stage would be a positive development for everyone involved. If the plan is DOA, the biggest losers will be the ones who are making peace impossible.

The plan doesn't depend upon specific political players for its implementation:

Although U.S. officials insist they’re not taking sides in the Israeli elections slated for March 2, the timing of the plan’s release is useful for Netanyahu, who was indicted today on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of public trust. Given Netanyahu’s troubles (and the likely prospect that he’s not Prime Minister for much longer), the administration was committed to bringing Gantz on board with the plan as well. Kushner told me: “It’s good to see how two competitors in the Israel elections can put aside their differences to promote the interests of their country ahead of their political interests.” That wasn’t the Gantz’s initial position—he first publicly objected to the release of the plan before the election; after weeks of diplomacy he reversed his position and expressed support. Meanwhile, while Netanyahu will receive receive a temporary boost, he will have trouble guarding his right flank. The far-right parties on which he relies for political survival will decry his endorsement of a Palestinian state, whatever else the plan says.

I have to give Jared Kushner more credit than I did when he first announced this project. It takes into account the above-mentioned shifted regional dynamics. It's basically a message to the Palestinians that this is their best shot at getting something workable. The US and Israel are dealing from a position of strength; if the Palestinians take a pass, so be it. The real action is now elsewhere.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the Very Stable Genius basically delegated it to others. That generally works out best in any arena of US policy.