Ten Questions About Two States

With the release of the Trump Middle East peace plan, the “Deal of the Century,” there have been many questions and challenges posed about whether it's good or bad, politically motivated or not, has the potential to do anything toward achieving peace or make things worse, and much more. One thing it does do is that it changes the paradigm from the decades old mantra and largely failed policy of two states along the pre-1967 armistice line (the boundaries following the 1948-49 War of Independence) and makes people look at Israel and the Middle East through a different prism.

Here are ten questions and things to look out for and to ponder as the plan is revealed and the outcome unfolds and pundits and politicians have their input:

1. It seems the Trump plan creates a new paradigm. For those who reject it because the old two state solution is the preferred model, with whom should Israel make peace if there is no Palestinian Arab partner willing to recognize Israel’s legitimacy?

2. If there were a partner with which to pursue peace, which should it be: the PLO (Fatah) or Hamas, competing terror organizations, and if Israel made peace with one would the other honor it, and would there even be peace? What would need to be done to ensure that the other didn’t overthrow the leader of the group that made peace with Israel, and hijack a Palestinian state by establishing a formal terrorist state on Israel’s border?

3. Currently the PLO controls the Arab population centers of West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and Hamas controls Gaza. If Israel made peace with one that didn’t control the other territory, would there need to be two Palestinian states, or basically a three state solution?

4. How does it impact things that there is no real effective legitimate government within the Palestinian Authority with their President Abbas now in the 14th year of a 4-year term, and afraid to hold elections at risk of losing his tenuous grip on power? Should the Palestinian Authority hold elections as a referendum on what their people want, or is it good enough for authoritarian “leaders” to claim that they represent their people and their will if not interests?

5. Would Israeli annexation of Jewish communities in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) necessarily preclude the establishment of a Palestinian state should a partner and the right circumstances come to pass? Could Jewish Israeli communities eventually become part of a Palestinian state, as there are Arab communities that are part of Israel?

6. For some years broader Arab support for Palestinian Arabs has been more symbolic than strident. How will the Arab states respond to the peace plan, to Israel’s response, to Trump administration? Will their support, or lack of protest, indicate possibly pressuring of the Palestinians, pressure from Trump, or just the idea of waiting things out until the dust settles?

7. Some say that by promoting the plan now, Trump is using this toward his advantage politically. Will the notion of establishing a Palestinian state rebuff Trump’s Evangelical base of support much of which is stridently opposed to dividing any of the Land of Israel not under Jewish sovereignty? If the plan does not take root, or violence follows, would this increase or decrease Trump’s support going into November?

8. With Israeli elections coming up, how will the political parties play up the acceptance, rejection, or qualifications of the Trump peace proposal, and how will this impact politics to try to sway votes from one party to another?

9. Some say that releasing the plan now is a gift to Prime Minister Netanyahu who faces his third election in a year. How will the next several weeks of Israel’s election season allow it to take any decisive action? Is it possible that rather than a gift to Netanyahu, the plan is really a way to nudge Israel’s two main left and right of center political parties to form a unity government to work together toward implementation of a peace strategy with a national consensus?

10. Does the nature of the Trump peace plan set a precedent that the U.S. can unilaterally decide on elements of a policy in Israel, and is that a good thing? What will happen when a president is elected who is less friendly toward Israel and decides to do things against Israel’s interests of possible equal proportion?

It’s impossible to predict what will happen broadly as a result of revealing the peace plan, however there are a few things that are intuitive. First, peace will not spontaneously break out. No actual comprehensive peace can be imposed, and it won’t happen overnight. It will take negotiation and an acceptance by Palestinian Arabs and whoever their leaders are, that this is in their interest and that Israel is legitimate.

It is also intuitive that this is or will be yet another occasion for Palestinian and other Arabs to incite violence against Israel. It's possible that things could get ugly, very ugly. Simply the idea that premeditated and orchestrated violence is a possibility shows how far we have to go in realizing the possibility that they are (or ever will be) ready to make peace.

Whatever the outcome(s) are, it's not going to be boring. Little things that are done, or conversely not done, could be telling. Pay attention and stay tuned.

Maybe I’ve misread this, but to me, this is the peace plan that Israel and the U.S. have agreed to. Recognizing the reality of the situation and that there are too many parties at the table who have no interest in peace.

It seems to set an admission ticket of proof of action by whoever wishes to occupy the seat on the Arab side of the table. Here’s the conditions to continue forward, and here’s what you get for it.

And Egypt is already on board, Jordan has mostly agreed (little quibble over if the PLO is already eligible to represent), and even Syria appears to accept it.

So rejection by the provisional government or Hamas is meaningless, neither presently qualify by the agreements terms.

To me, this is really brilliant strategy. Recognize what is there and pay your way into negotiations by proving you actually represent and control the territory. Meanwhile, everyone else can still back the agreement so long as Israel keep to their terms.

To me, this is really brilliant strategy.

Brilliant? Most likely, but in a different way. All this scheme does is forever remove the U.S. from being involved in the question of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The plan itself has absolutely no chance of succeeding, and that may never have been its intention. The U.S. has tried paint itself as the neutral party and this ends that farce. The plan codifies what Trump has been doing all along, recognizing an undivided Jerusalem as the sole property and political capital of Israel. Having done that no future U.S. administration can go back to the concept of a negotiated settlement to the status of Jerusalem. The plan also gives Israel the cover to annex whatever part of the West Bank that they want to. Once they have done that then no future U.S. administration could possibly go back to a plan of a Palestinian state in the areas Israel has annexed. Trying to force Israel to undo that would be impossible and political suicide. It forever destroys any illusion of the U.S. being an honest broker interested in a agreement acceptable to both Israel and the Palestinians.

So from now on the whole mess is in the hands of Israel and the Palestinians alone. Solve it, don't solve it, whatever. The U.S. is out of the peace business in that region of the Middle East. And nobody else is going to be foolish enough to step in.

I understand your viewpoint, and it is refreshing to know that nearly 40 years of us playing pacemaker is at an end. But I think that it is more than that, and it appears that Egpyt agreed including text that indicated that they would help support those who well be operating in the U.S. Israeli agreement.

That kind of was the point in how it was negotiated. Palestinians wanted to jump back to the negotiating table seeking concessions to stop terrorist attacks. Not for peace or a long term settlement, just to stop attacks. Now they have to stop attacks just to get to the table. They have to make peace among themselves to get the tunnel done.

And all of their supports are hamstrung because to dismiss the agreement out of hand, they pretty much have to publicly agree that terrorism is the path to negotiation. That's a huge hurdle for much of the EU and BDS advocates to jump over. (And a suicidal one with population shifts in the region.)

I don't see the temper tantrum of a thousand nos meaning much outside of a few articles. This is the framework that the future operates under, and is amazingly generous.

And why would they want to get to the table? And don't say 'peace' because they could have had peace on much more advantageous terms in the past. Why would they want to agree to much less now?

And all of their supports are hamstrung because to dismiss the agreement out of hand, they pretty much have to publicly agree that terrorism is the path to negotiation.

Not really. All they have to do is say that any agreement must be predicated on existing international agreements, which just about all of them have done. Since the Trump plan tosses all of them out the window then full support from other counties in the area are far from certain.

This is the framework that the future operates under, and is amazingly generous.

For Israel, yes. For the Palestinians, not so much.

Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

1-This is a two state plan.

2-There is no non terrorist plan. Two potential partners, one unelected head of a designated terror organization, one head of a partly designated terror organization in the 14th year of his 4 year term. There is no legitimate leader, you negotiate with what you have. 3-Yes, PLO control was the Oslo plan. The objective is one state in perpetual civil war, what you have now. 4-Ignore those things. 5-Of course. Jews aren't allowed in Islamic states. 6-Depends on whether they support Iran, or would like Israel's help in confronting Iran. 7-It may be to his advantage politically. Or not, depends what happens. In the non media world, positive accomplishments usually have positive benefits, including political. 8-Given that the heads of the two leading parties/coalitions attended, don't see it as an issue. 9-Netanyahu has advocated commercial development as a path to peace for decades. Such development being the only hope this plan has to succeed. 10-Hardly unique to President Trump. Every President since Ford has pressured Israel to conform to their vision. Only thing different here is it actually recognizes facts on the ground. For the first time, GWB gave them lip service but no commitment. 11-The issue shouldn't be the "plan", rather structured negotiations initially centering on normalizing palestinian life and commerce. If the palestinians won't talk, it's dead, and if they insist on terror, it's dead. And the reality which this plan recognizes is that the future of an intransigent palestinian population, as represented by their government, won't be better than the present. The underlying solution would be for said population to insist on a new government, difficult in a terror state. But at least it's an opportunity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.