Giving Israel the high ground in the US - analysis

For the plan to move the diplomatic process with the Palestinians forward, the Palestinians would have to take part in it – something they have stubbornly refused to do.

By HERB KEINON
U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appear together at a joint news conference to discuss a new Middle East peace plan proposal in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S. (photo credit: REUTERS/BRENDAN MCDERMID)
U.S. President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appear together at a joint news conference to discuss a new Middle East peace plan proposal in the East Room of the White House in Washington, U.S.
(photo credit: REUTERS/BRENDAN MCDERMID)
The chances are good that the “Deal of the Century” US President Donald Trump rolled out on Tuesday night with great fanfare will not lead to peace, at least not in the foreseeable future.
For the plan to move the diplomatic process with the Palestinians forward, the Palestinians would have to take part in it – something they have stubbornly refused to do.
So the deal won’t bring peace right away. But what it can do immediately, at least if Israel accepts it, is stem the negative tide toward Israel in the Democratic Party.
Tough language against Israel in Democratic debates and town-hall meetings by candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders often elicits enthusiastic applause from the audience. That says something, and it continues to worry those concerned about the level of Israel’s support in all of America.
Accepting the Trump plan will turn on its head the argument often heard in the Sanders and Warren wing of the Democratic Party that Israel should not be supported because it does nothing for the Palestinians, because it wants to rule over the Palestinians, and because it is on the fast track to becoming an “apartheid” state.
This plan, which both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his chief rival, Blue and White Party head Benny Gantz, have accepted, provides a “pathway” for a Palestinian state.
The Palestinians may reject it because it does not give them 100% of what they want. But with Israel accepting the plan, its counterargument, and a strong one, will be: “Don’t say Israel is not willing to do anything for the Palestinians or give them anything, because we are willing.”
One senior American official said the plan is important and will influence American public opinion because it lays out conditions for a Palestinian state. Under the plan, the Palestinians, to get a state down the line, must disarm Hamas and Islamic Jihad, must stop paying terrorists and inciting terrorism, must end corruption, must respect human rights and must grant religious freedom and allow a free press.
Why is that important to stipulate? Because up until now there has been a tendency on the American Left to give the Palestinians a free pass regarding the type of state that will be created – not much concern with the content of the state, just a determination that a state be created.
This plan lays down the milestones for that state, and under the plan, the Palestinians will only get a state if they pass those milestones. Once those conditions are out there, the senior administration official said, any future administration will be bound by them. These milestones will be “baked” in and will drive every future discussion about a Palestinian state.
If the conditions are not met, then Israel will be able to argue to the next administration, even if it is not led by Trump, that the Palestinians have not met the conditions laid out in a US-sponsored plan – so perhaps they are not ready for a state.
One of the problems Israel has with the Democratic Party, a party increasingly distancing itself from Israel, is that it views Israel as the rejectionist party to the conflict, not offering the Palestinians anything, not presenting any horizon. For many Democrats, the idea of a Palestinian state has become a sacred cow.
What is less important, however, is the dimensions of the cow, meaning that even if the state is not along the 1967 lines, as the Palestinians demand, it is still a state. So while the Palestinians will be infuriated by the contours of the state that they may someday achieve under the plan, for some abroad, what will be significant is that Israel made an offer for a state, and that the Palestinians turned it down.
What this will do is highlight for the US public, and for the international community, something that has been absent for years and has led to a deterioration in support for Israel: that Jerusalem wants peace, that it is willing to cede territory to achieve that peace, and that the Palestinians are the ones not willing to accept it because it gives them only 70%, not 100%, of the territory.
Accepting the plan gives Israel the high ground on this issue in the US, something not to be discounted amid uncertainty as to whether Trump will return for another four years.