Recently at the Doha Forum, Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said that the Trump plan “Is not only about Gaza, but also the West Bank. It’s about the rights of the Palestinians for their state.”
Whether this was said as wishful thinking or as an exercise in disinformation, the facts are exactly the opposite.
US President Donald Trump’s plan excludes Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and focuses on freeing the remaining hostages, dismantling Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza. The first goal has been achieved, and the other two will be completed by the International Stability Force (ISF) or by the IDF.
The simple fact is that the 20-point Trump plan for ending the war in Gaza buries the Palestinian state fairytale, and the adoption of the plan by the UN Security Council in Resolution 2803 reaffirms it.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political rivals at home – whether genuine supporters of Palestinian statehood or those who find it politically expedient to oppose anything Netanyahu does – along with Israel’s international detractors, welcomed the Trump administration’s approach to achieving the ceasefire in Gaza.
The Plan makes no mention of the West Bank or East Jerusalem
They, like Qatar’s prime minister, argue that Netanyahu has effectively agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state. At the same time, pro-Palestinian critics of the plan argue that its fundamental flaw regarding Palestinian statehood is its narrow scope: it makes no mention of the West Bank, the eastern parts of Jerusalem, or the settlements, and thus is a surefire road to failure.
This UNSC resolution is different from previous resolutions because it does not pretend that a Palestinian state exists or necessarily should exist. It does not demand a dangerous Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and does not predispose negotiations on specific final borders based on the “1967 borders.” In fact, it does not even stipulate where, geographically, such a future state would exist.
Pundits who have actually studied the maps have suggested that Sinai is the solution, or perhaps the western expanses of Saudi Arabia are the best location for a future Palestinian state, if anything, at least temporarily, until true Palestinian reform is achieved. As a matter of principle, the Middle East stakeholders who are urging to establishment of a Palestinian state should also offer some real estate alongside their advice.
The Trump plan’s language on Palestinian statehood is restricted and vague, stating that conditions “may” create a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood when the Palestinian Authority's future reforms are completed. It fails to mention when and for how long the PA will have to make such reforms.
Both the UNSC resolution and the Trump plan specify that once the PA undergoes a stringent course of reform and societal deradicalization – as laid out by Trump in his first term – then “the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” In other words, the time to discuss statehood is when such a state would cease to be a threat to Israel. And it will be the US and Israel who judge if these conditions have been met.
The UNSC resolution also authorizes Israel’s presence in a Gaza buffer zone and conditions PA administration of Gaza on whether it “can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza.” Or, in other words, Israel will hold a security buffer until the red cows come home.
Michael Waltz, US ambassador to the UN, described the resolution as the “most pro-Israel UN resolution ever adopted” as well as the first real step in generations toward lasting peace.
He is correct.
The simple truth is that the Trump plan and the Security Council resolution that ratifies it prevent a Palestinian state anywhere from the river to the sea.
The writer is a former head of the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s office in Washington and a senior analyst at Acumen Risk Ltd., a risk-management firm.