INTO THE FRAY: The Trump plan: The good, the bad, the unknown and…the untenable


Assessing the overall long-term merits of the “Deal of the Century” is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target

There was a wedding today. The groom showed up. The bride stayed home and wished the groom dead. And everyone clapped – A caustic assessment of the “Deal of the Century”, attributed to Meir Jolovitz, Middle East Radio, Phoenix, AZ, courtesy of my Facebook friend, Jan Sniderman

Over the years, I have expressed what are generally considered distinctly hardline, hawkish views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I categorically opposed any notion entailing the establishment of a Palestinian state and any withdrawal from territory currently under Israel’s administration, west of the Jordan.

Given my past positions, I should, of course, vigorously reject the “Deal of the Century” as proposed last week by the Trump Administration, which does involve both these elements.

Significant benefits, grave detriments

Indeed, the “Deal of the Century” offers Israel huge benefits that would have been unthinkable barely three years ago, but it also includes grave detriments that seriously undermine both its desirability from a partisan Israeli point of view, and its practicality from a more objective point of view.

So, the crucial consideration must be whether, in the long run, the overall beneficial impact of accumulated positive components outweighs (or is outweighed by) the overall detrimental impact of the accumulated negative components.

Making such an appraisal is, of course, not an easy task—and is getting more complex as time progresses. For what it was initially understood to entail has become shrouded in subsequent “clarifications”, which did little to clarify anything.

Indeed, making a measured assessment of the overall merits (or lack thereof) is a little like trying to hit a rapidly moving target, just when you think you have it in your sights, it turns out you don’t.

Thus, what originally appeared to be a US endorsement of the immediate extension of Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the large settlement blocks, turned out to be a deferred endorsement, contingent on the formation of a committee—and its subsequent deliberations—with eventual sovereignty being delayed until after the March 2020 elections.

This, regrettably, raises several perturbing question marks regarding the practical value of the “Deal” for Israel—as will be detailed a little later.

The basic elements

But putting aside for the moment the admittedly weighty issue of the timing of the application of Israeli sovereignty, in the broadest of brush strokes, the basic elements of the “Deal”, as presented at the White House, were as follows:

Israeli Sovereignty: The US will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Jordan Valley and the major Jewish settlement blocs and over an undivided Jerusalem, within the present contours of the security barrier, as the undivided capital of Israel. Sovereignty will also be applied to Jewish communities beyond the major blocs, which although accessible by road, would be in the unenviable position of being isolated enclaves surrounded by Palestinian-Arab territory.

Security: Security in the entire area—from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River–will be under the control of the IDF for an indeterminant period of time.

Borders and Airspace: The external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum are to remain under Israeli control.

Refugees: There will be no “Right of Return” and no Palestinian-Arab refugee will be resettled in Israel.

These are all clearly significant and tangible benefits for Israel, planned to accrue to it, if not immediately, then within a relatively short time. Their net value, however, must be weighed against the countervailing returns envisaged for the Palestinian—Arab side.

The basic elements (cont.) 

In this regard, the “Deal” envisions any benefits to the Palestinian side as being both deferred and contingent on the fulfilment of a number of onerous conditions.

This, unsurprisingly, has elicited harsh responses from pro-Palestinian sources. Thus, according to Tareq Baconi of the International Crisis Group, cited in a recent NPR article:“…it [the “Deal”] places Palestinians on probation while they prove their worthiness of statehood, using conditions that are malleable and ill-defined; it seeks to induce Palestinian capitulation through economic largesse; and it removes the onus on Israel to make any concessions until Palestinians declare their full surrender.

It is not difficult grasp why the Palestinian-Arabs take such a dim view of the proposal, which an infuriated Mahmoud Abbas rejected with “a 1000 ‘no’s”.

For although the “Deal” does trace a path to eventual Palestinian statehood on about 70% of Judea-Samaria, including significant portions of Area C, currently under sole Israeli control, this depends on the Palestinian-Arab side complying with several significant provisos over a period of four years.

Among others, these include:

– Recognizing Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people

– Ceasing the funding of terrorists and their families

– Ending Judeophobic incitement

– Disarming Hamas and Islamic Jihad

– Establishing an orderly civil society by eradicating corruption, respecting human rights and permitting a free press

Only after these conditions are met, will the US recognize a Palestinian state and implement a massive economic plan—reportedly $50 billion– to assist it. Moreover, some sort of “safe passage”—such as a tunnel—between Gaza and the Palestinian areas in Judea-Samaria is planned.

Is the “Deal” a good deal? 

So, on the surface, the “Deal” appears a highly advantageous one for Israel.

It entails immediate—or soon to be realized—enhancement of the standing of Jewish communities, entrenches Israel’s hold over the strategically vital Jordan Valley, ensures the status of Jerusalem as the country’s undivided capital and maintains Israel’s indefinite control over the borders and airspace.

Thus, the former head of Israel’s Internal Security (Shin Bet), Yoram Cohen, summed it up as follows: “From Israel’s point of view, this is a great achievement….We have received almost all of our security requirements we’ve sought for years. Continued counterterrorism in the West Bank, security in the Jordan Valley as well, the request for Gaza disarmament and responsibility for counterterrorism after giving them a state or autonomy. We’ve got everything we want except the safe passage issue, but I’m not sure we’ll really get to it.”

According to Cohen: “The most dramatic things are Jerusalem and the Old City that will remain under Israeli sovereignty, the legitimization of all settlements [by] the US, the abolishment of the right of return and transfer 30% of Judea and Samaria to Israeli sovereignty. In this area I think Israel has great achievements.”

Moreover, some astute analysts have very cogently pointed out that perhaps the greatest merit of the “Deal” is that it has upended the mendacious Palestinian narrative, which hitherto has largely defined international attitudes to the conflict -see here, here, and here.

There are, however, other considerations that could countermand the accumulated advantages that the “Deal” heralds for Israel—or at least, severely erode their value.

Does the “Deal” address Israel’s twin imperatives

In this regard, I have been at pains to underscore that for Israel to endure, in the long run, as the nation-state of the Jewish people, it must adequately address both its Geographic Imperative and its Demographic Imperative—see for example here (2012), here (2015), here (2017), here (2019) and here (2019).

Addressing the former, precludes undertaking perilous territorial concessions that would make Israel untenable geographically; while addressing the later precludes the presence of a large scale, recalcitrant non-Jewish population within the contours of the sovereign Jewish nation-state, that would make Israel untenable demographically.

Given the fact that the “Deal” stipulates that the IDF will remain deployed throughout the territory and Israel will control both the airspace and electromagnetic spectrum above it, it would appear that the Geographic Imperative is largely addressed.

With the Demographic Imperative, the situation is distinctly different. After all, according to the “Deal’s” parameters, the entire Arab population will remain in place west of Jordan. True, they will not have political rights within Israel, but as I have pointed out repeatedly, the demographic danger to the status of Israel is not solely—or even chiefly—dependent on whether or not the inherently hostile Palestinian-Arab population is enfranchised or not. For their impact at the ballot box would hardly be less than their impact on the socio-cultural fabric of the country – see for example here (2019), here (2017), here (2015), here (2014) and here (2013)– inevitably imperiling the ability of Israel to sustain its dominantly Jewish character.

Perpetuates rather than resolves?

So, whether or not the “Deal” is implemented, the reality will be that Israel will be left with a significant, inimical non-Jewish population within the territory, which it is obliged to control—at least militarily for its vital security needs.

After all, if the “Deal” is eventually implemented, the Arab population in Judea and Samaria (and Gaza) will be left with limited, sub-sovereign rights—making the accusations of discrimination on the basis of ethnic origins not only inevitable but difficult to refute. If, on the other hand, the “Deal” is not implemented after the pledged extension of Israeli sovereignty, the Arabs of Judea-Samaria (and Gaza) will remain in their current situation, under the dysfunctional rule of a corrupt kleptocracy in the former and the tyrannical theocracy in the latter .

Of course, if the “Deal” is implemented, one of the major considerations will be the degree of freedom of movement into Israel afforded the Arab residents of “Palestine”. If they have relatively unfettered access to Israeli beaches, shopping malls, entertainment centers and so on, the impact on the socio-cultural fabric will be greatly enhanced; if not, “Palestine “will become a ghetto-like enclave and a lighting rod for anti-Israeli censure…and possible sanctions.

So, whether it is actually implemented or not, the “Deal” cannot effectively address Israel’s demographic menace, but only perpetuate it.

The question of Gaza and succession

The “Deal” also called for the disarming of the terror groups in Gaza—chiefly Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Leaving aside the feasibility of such a worthy objective, let us suppose for a moment that it could be achieved. Then, how would a demilitarized Gaza, which abuts the Sinai, withstand any onslaughts for the Jihadi elements that abound in the peninsula, frustrating Egyptian efforts to subdue them. Would the IDF be redeployed in Gaza? If not, who would be responsible for the external security of the coastal enclave? Would the Palestinian Authority be armed sufficiently to meet impending threats from Sinai, especially if Egyptians find the burden of contending the Jihadi insurgents too onerous—and withdraw from the peninsula to deal with the mounting challenges elsewhere—see for example here and here?

No less grave is the question of the durability of the conditions prescribed by the “Deal”.

After all, even if, against all odds, the current Palestinian-Arab leadership agrees to accept the conditions prescribed for statehood, who can guarantee that it will not be replaced—by bullet or ballot—with far less amenable successors, who repudiate these conditions and revert to a resumption of hostilities against the Jewish state? And if such a scenario came about, could Israel retract its recognition of Palestinian “statehood” and reinstate the status quo ante?

The question of cost & the Humanitarian alternative

Apart from the US$50 billion aid package intended to boost the Palestinian economy, the “Deal” envisages a dizzying array of overpasses and underpasses, bridges and tunnels connecting the various Palestinian allotted territories in Judea-Samaria—as well as an approximately 30 mile long tunnel, linking Gaza with the “West Bank” (Judea-Samaria)—which alone is estimated as costing up to $15 billion.

Indeed, although the true cost of the “Deal” is not only unknown, but almost impossible to assess with any accuracy, one thing is beyond doubt. It will certainly carry a price tag that reaches into the tens of billions—to produce results that, at best, will be tenuous.

The underlying flaws in the “Deal” are inherent in its very essence, and although it is certainly a huge improvement on previous attempts to resolve the conflict between Jew and Arab over control of the Holy Land, it is still afflicted by the same defects that afflicted its predecessors. It fails to come to terms with the stark reality that there is no way to devise a scheme that can resolve this conflict by a division—however ingenious–of  the land from the River to the Sea between two inimical collectives with irreconcilable founding narratives. Thus, there is no way to convert an intrinsically “zero sum” game into a “win-win” “positive sum” game. Any attempt to do so is doomed to inevitable failure.

It is for this reason that, for the last decade and half, I have urged Israel to launch a large-scale initiative for the incentivized emigration of the Arab population of Judea-Samaria and Gaza as the only strategic measure that can adequately address both Israel’s Geographic and Demographic Imperatives. It is toward this end that the billions planned to be invested in the “Deal” should be channeled.

Epilogue: The “Deal” – What to do?

In the final analysis – what should Israel do?

My sense is that Israel should accept the “Deal”, secure in the knowledge it will be rejected by the Palestinians, who will not—indeed, cannot—comply with the conditions required of them– and thus reap, the tangible benefits it bestows on it, with negligible risk of future Palestinian compliance. It should, however, do so before the upcoming March elections: For who knows whether a future coalition headed by Benny Gantz’s Blue & White would, or could, support such far-reaching unilateral moves by Israel?

After all, there is no better time to strike the iron than when it is hot!

Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

February 1, 2020 | 10 Comments » | 769 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

10 Comments / 10 Comments

  1. The real issue is whether the Plan contains any provision for Israel taking steps unilaterally s oapily Israeli law in the settlements, establish Israeli law in the Jordan Valley, “grow” existing settlements, etc., or whether all this is contingent on an agreement with the Palestinians. If the first interpretation is correct, the Plan can help to advance Israeli goals. If the second interpretation is correct, the plan is useless from Israel’s point of view. Can Dr. Sherman or anyone else clarify this point for me, and site the relevant passages in the Plan?

  2. If the Plan does not permit any unilateral Israeli actions to extend its sovereignty, then its only real value would be to introduce into the international conversation about a solution” to the Palestinian question” a detailed proposal that would be extremely beneficial to the Palestinians, while endangering Israel much less than the previous “peace” plans put forward by the “Quartet ” (the U.S., the EU, the Russians, and the UN) Switzerland, Israeli “peaceniks,” and various other meddlers. The foreign meddlers will be hard-pressed to demonstrate that the Trump plan would not be beneficial to the Palestinians and that it would


    at least go some distance toward recognizing what they claim are their “legitimate rights,” or that it did not require compromise and concessions by Israel and the Palestinians. Introducing into the international conversation about “Palestine” such a reasonable proposal for a negotiated compromise peace will have some public relations value for Israel, even if as seems likely it achieves nothing else.

  3. Israel does not need anyone’s approval to apply sovereignty to its land. Trump said he would recognize Israel doing that. Why does the plan need to say that explicitly. It is de-facto already recognizing Israeli land on 30% of Judea/Samaria and says others areas would be the Pals subject to many conditions. There are NO conditions on the Israeli land.

  4. @ Bear Klein:

    All the proposed and adjacent land is already under Israeli control, but military instead of civilian. So there is no reason NOT to extend Israeli Law, not quite sovereignty, and not annexation, to what we already have complete authority over. As Greenblatt (or I think maybe Friedmann) said the other day, “sovereignty is not annexation.”…

    I would be inclined to just extend Israeli Civil Law and PUBLICLY base it on the group of irrevocable unanimous Laws passed between 1920 and 1924, and end with the UN unequivocal acceptance of these Laws in Art. 80 of the UN Founding Document

    THAT would let the cat into the pigeon-house in no uncertain terms… Perhaps restore matters to dealing with fact, as Trump avers he does, not invented pseudo-realities……….

    Nothing to lose I say…….!!

    So Bear, you and I see eye to eye in this as you say just above…

  5. Imagine 50 bill wasted on a fairy tail. 50 bill could do a lot in the real world, cure lots of illnesses, feed the hungry, make abb’arse and co. inc have nice homes on the Riviera.
    In real life, 50 bill could give nice homes, create new jobs, make family reunification a reality. Could give Jordan a large capacity desalination plant in the gulf of elat. Imagine the life style changes the sodomites could have, all this and more in Jordan arabia, Turkey, e u.
    But a spit in trumps face is more exciting than self hand pleasing + erotic thoughts of the 3 bitches.

  6. Israel should apply sovereignty and civil law to Area C without relinquishing the legal claim to all of Judea and Samaria, in principle. There is nothing to be gained by making such a compromise. Once Trump is out of office, none of the provisions that benefit Israel will be acknowledged. We’ve seen this over and over. Most recently, the Bush letter that Obama later repudiated and which led to the disastrous withdrawal from Gaza. The Oslo Accords were also based on Pal repudiation of violence. It was a condition! Remember how carefully Res 242 was crafted to say “territories” not “the” “territories” to be relinquished in exchange for peace? There was no peace – just a cease-fire won by force of arms and all the “international community” heard was back to the ’49 armistice lines. The only thing anyone will remember is that Israel withdrew its claim. Bad idea. Time is on Israel’s side. No reason to rush into a fool’s errand for the sake of a peace that will never happen. The only reason that the Gulf states are being nicer to Israel is a) fear of Iran b) fear of Trump c) oil has lost its clout and they need an economic life-line. It’s temporary.

  7. @ Sebastien Zorn

    I do not see why Israel needs to wait for another government prior to exercising it’s legitimate rights.
    I would annex the whole enchilada. Bibi’s idea of annexing only Maale Adumim is lame. This is the typical error. Terror will follow and the Israeli public will blame Netanyahu and The Likud and demand no further annexations. Just take it all and be done with it. Right Now.
    Let The IDF do their jobs unfettered.

  8. @ Edgar G.:
    Applying Israeli Civil is exactly applying Sovereignty. You ONLY need to annex what you do Not own or have the rights to. Israel has the legal and historical rights to Judea/Samaria.

  9. @ Sebastien Zorn: Israel’s situation has been compromised by its failure to assert its rightful sovereignty over all of Palestine west of the Jordan. By not claiming this land, it tacitly accepted the counter-claims of the other side. Israeli diplomacy concerning Judea, Samaria and Gaza has been idiotic and cowardly. Israel shoud have immediately claimed sovereignty over the whole land when it declared its independence, or when it signed the armistice agreements. That would not have in and of itself guaranteed that Israel would achieve sovereinty over the area. Military action was required for that. But once Israel succeeded in occupying these territories in 1967, it could have reiterated its claim to them. At that time, the ‘international community” was not quite as universally hostile to Israel as it has become. If Israel had energetically promoted its claim to these territories then, the international “conversation” about them might have been different. Israel’s lack of confidence in the justice of its own cause has been a major weakness all along.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.