It looks like the Trump administration has come to agree with the conclusion reached by every American president since the first Gulf War – that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessary to promote regional security and US strategic interests in the Middle East.
When viewed this way, the struggle for justice for Palestinians becomes not an end in itself, rather it is the price to be paid so that the United States can confront threats to stability, whether they come from Saddam’s Iraq, revolutionary Iran or non-state terrorist entities.
This new appreciation for the functional role of Israeli-Palestinian peace has caused Donald Trump to appear to backtrack on some of his more provocative positions on the issue. He’s stalling on moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He’s expressed reservations about Israel’s settlement building programme, and leading cabinet members have maintained the administration is committed to the two-state solution.
All of these “signals”, coupled with special envoy Jason Greenblatt’s recent visit to Israel and Palestine, have raised expectations that the Trump administration may be serious about achieving a deal involving an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a regional peace arrangement between Israel and US allies in the Arab world. Expectations were further fuelled by reports that Mr Greenblatt’s visit left Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu unsettled and Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas reassured. I can’t share this upbeat assessment because, for several reasons, I remain pessimistic about the prospects of this entire undertaking.
In the first place, Israel’s leadership has no interest in any reasonable solution that meets minimum Palestinian requirements. When he was in Washington, Mr Netanyahu, who often states that he wants “negotiations without preconditions”, made it clear that this demand applies only to the Palestinians, since he presented his own non-negotiable terms: Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” and full Israeli security control over the land west of the Jordan River. These terms ask Palestinians to accept second-class citizenship for their brethren in Israel, while leaving the West Bank under permanent Israeli military control.
Then, there is the issue of settlements. It has been reported that Mr Netanyahu is seeking to secure from the Trump administration a better agreement than the one that Ariel Sharon obtained from George W Bush. The Israelis want US permission to continue settlement growth even beyond what they term “settlement blocs” that house the majority of settlers in the West Bank. Mr Netanyahu will not accept limits in what the Israelis have unilaterally termed “East Jerusalem”, but which is, in fact, an extensive swatch of land encompassing 10 per cent of the West Bank and 22 Palestinian villages. Nor will he accept any restrictions in the Jordan Valley, where the Israelis have seized and are exploiting that region’s most fertile land. Given these conditions, what is left for Palestinians is a series of disconnected cantons that can never form a viable entity.
Mr Netanyahu believes in retaining control over Eretz Israel and has expanded settlements towards achieving that end. He has, however, learnt to feint in the direction of supporting two states to ease international pressure, while consolidating control over more Palestinian land.
Another tactic Mr Netanyahu has used is to argue that he can’t make too many concessions on settlements for fear of losing his governing coalition.
This argument is, at best, disingenuous since on a number of occasions it has been clear that if Mr Netanyahu truly wanted peace, he could have shed some of his current partners in favour of forming a more centrist coalition.
Even beyond settlement expansion, another reason to be pessimistic are the 600,000 settlers who currently populate the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The very position of the settlements and the disposition of the settlers who reside in them has created a near irreversible situation in the occupied lands. Any reasonable resolution guaranteeing Palestinian sovereignty and viability will require the removal of a large number of these occupiers. Given the state of Israeli politics today, it is impossible to imagine a scenario where any Israeli government will or even can make such a move.
Finally, the demand made by Israel and accepted by the US that any peace arrangement must come from direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations without external intervention means that the process is doomed from the start.
The asymmetry of power between the two parties and the fact that Israel is the occupier with total control, while the Palestinian Authority is a dependency with no leverage, means that we will have Israel dictating terms that Palestinians can only accept or reject. This is a recipe for disaster.
Arab states may be willing to give Mr Trump a chance to convene an international conference since, given the current unsettling state of affairs in the region, they may not want to alienate the US administration. But unless the White House is willing to get tough and get smart and present a bold new challenge to Israel laying down the law on settlements and the just requirements for peace, it doesn’t stand a chance of succeeding.
Since I don’t expect bold, just or smart steps, I’m not expecting any great deal or the formation of any overt regional alliance any time soon.
Dr James Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute
On Twitter: @aaiusa
