Deal of the Century, but not this century

B
ye-bye, peace plan.

That’s the consensus view in Washington, now that Avigdor Lieberman has forced Bibi Netanyahu to schedule new elections for September. The original White House road map called for an economic conference in Bahrain in late June, followed by the release of the political component at an undetermined future date.

But now, instead of entering a round of diplomatic negotiations during which the Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt peace plan would finally be revealed, we find ourselves in a situation in which the entire peace plan may be pushed off into an uncertain future.

I spoke to a number of policy experts in Washington this week, both conservatives and liberals, and they all agreed: The delay only benefits the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas, they explained, knows the plan will favor the Israelis. Thus, every day that it’s not on the table is a victory day for Ramallah.

But after considering the subject carefully, I believe the opposite is true. The real story of the peace plan is not bringing an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Everyone knows that is impossible for now, including Kushner and Greenblatt, who have been meeting for two years with leaders in the Middle East. The White House duo also knows that the Palestinian leadership will immediately reject any peace overture from the Trump administration, thus closing the door on the “deal of the century.”

Yet Kushner and Greenblatt are determined to forge ahead. Why? Because Trump’s legacy won’t be the implementation of the peace plan but defining the terms of the debate for years to come.

Anyone who has read a bit about the conflict can recite the current American position in his sleep: A return to the 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps; two states; an end to the conflict; and an end to Palestinian claims on Israel. That position, however, has not been the policy of the Israeli government for a decade.

Netanyahu did deliver the Bar-Ilan speech in 2009, in which he embraced the two-state solution, but since then he has taken care to recede from it step by step, to the point that this April, right before the elections, he actually spoke of full Israeli annexation of Area C. It is interesting to note that Kushner and Greenblatt haven’t uttered a single comment on that statement, which many have taken as a silent endorsement of Netanyahu’s gambit.

No one knows just what is included in the White House peace plan, but it will clearly alter the prevailing parameters. And assuming Trump is reelected in 2020, and that his ultimate successor takes two years to formulate his or her own policy on the region, we are entering a period in which the American position for the near future likely outright rejects the two-state solution.

Even if Trump loses in 2020, his successor will not be able to change existing policy on his or her first day in office. The subject will require serious discussion and review.

That’s why Trump may not go down in history as the president who brought an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but he may very well be the one who first established that a solution to the conflict does not necessarily involve an independent Palestinian state.

Therefore, it is in Netanyahu’s interest to present the plan to the public as soon as possible. The problem is that in the best-case scenario, a coalition will only take shape in Israel in November. That is the very month when Trump enters an election year. Historically, presidents don’t present major foreign policy challenges in an election year. If they fail, it becomes a talking point for their opponents in the campaign.

But in this case, there is a crucial difference. Trump’s intention might not be to implement a plan at all, but to change the terms of the debate. So don’t be surprised if, despite all predictions to the contrary, Trump seizes the short interval between the formation of a government in Israel and the official start of the American election year to hurriedly launch his peace plan. Netanyahu, for his part, will hope to hurriedly establish his next government in an effort help Trump burnish his legacy.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 763)