President Trump has teased forward his impending ‘Deal of the Century’ peace plan for Israel. Hope wanes eternal. But what might his historic peace plan actually entail?
First, there is one major element that it likely will not include: A two-state solution.
How do we know this? Because when President Donald Trump met with Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu earlier this year, the President said, "The two-state solution might not be the way to go forward."
This prima facia statement creates a clear opportunity for those who have ideas for alternative peace proposals that may include Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria (the so-called 'West Bank').
To the most recent American administrations, the land for peace formula, or the two-state solution, was considered sacrosanct. Under this recipe for peace, Israel was expected to eventually vacate all or most of Judea and Samaria and the eastern half of Jerusalem to create a Palestinian Arab state. It has long been the mantra of the primary peace process promoters that Israel, a country roughly resembling in size the small state of New Jersey, would need to surrender its ancestral areas to bring the elusive peace that it has always sought, even long before its reestablishment as a sovereign nation in 1948.
However, after over thirty years of Middle East peace summits and conferences, with millions of dollars wasted on these efforts, resulting in over 1,600 Israeli lives lost in terrorist attacks just in the past twenty years, with thousands of others wounded, perhaps it’s time to try something new?
The Trump comment in answer to a reporter’s question about the two-state solution sent a clear signal that new, that he would welcome a new approach. We are now in a new situation in which alternatives that include Israeli sovereignty may have an ear in Washington. The concern of many is that Israeli sovereignty that includes granting automatic citizenship to all residents denotes demographic disaster for Israel.
Toward this end, I propose a new peace plan called Peace for Peace, which does away with the failed land for peace formula and the hopelessly stalled negotiations and offers a unilateral path to peace between Israel and the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria.
Peace for Peace, if adopted by Israel’s political leadership, would change the rules of the game and stop unrealistically arousing the appetite of those who currently call themselves Palestinians. The approval of the Palestinian Authority, which has caused so much terrorism through its financing and incitement, would not be required, but the plan would, indeed, provide a better future for the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria. READ MORE
