A View from the Bleachers: The Trump peace plan – Deal of the century?

Rabbi Steven Garten

By Rabbi Steven H. Garten

Let us put aside any thoughts about the optics of an indicted prime minister standing for election, and an impeached president who is preparing for an election campaign, announcing the “deal of the century.” If this a deal, it is hard to imagine it being successful. All indications are that it was not negotiated by both sides. Usually the word ‘deal’ suggests agreement by the parties involved. So let’s change the terminology and reframe this for what it is: a possible starting point for negotiations. Whether it is an actual starting point, however, is completely dependent on one’s perspective.

If I am an Israeli yearning for the annexation of the West Bank and a demilitarized, neutered Palestinian “homeland” that reflects my fundamentalist reading of the Balfour Declaration, this is indeed the “deal of the century.” No need for further negotiations. I am happy.

If I am a Palestinian nationalist yearning for a state in which my destiny can be honed and crafted, this document gives me very little hope for a negotiated settlement. The boundaries are convoluted, the access to water and arable land is minimal. The document seems to respond to all of Israel’s legitimate security needs and none of my political aspirations. This feels less like a deal and more like a humiliating ratification of the status quo. I am not happy.

If I am representing the Sunni Arab states in the Middle East, the boundaries proposed for Israel might seem to marginalize the proxy armies of Shia Iran. They would be surrounded by Israeli and Egyptian military installations with little access to the sea or air. My public enthusiasm for the ‘deal’ may be a sad commentary about my relationship with my Palestinian cousins. It may even seem as if I have sold them out for expediency and Trump dollars. But I am very, very happy.

If I am a North American Jew worried about the ever weakening relationship between Israel and the Diaspora, this document is worrisome. A recent poll conducted by the Ruderman Family Foundation found that 25 per cent of American Jews want to see a safe, secure, democratic Israel living side by side with a democratic Palestinian state. This document does not speak to that reality. In addition, we noted that the perceived mistreatment of Palestinian rights by the Israeli government reflects in our support for Israel. We continually express our desire for both parties to be treated with respect and with actions that reflect the universal values that we associate with Judaism. While it is true that a significant segment of religious Jews in North America prioritize particularism over universalism, they are not yet the majority. For most of us, the Trump ‘deal’ relegates the Palestinians to a ghetto. It is all too reminiscent of what was done to us.

As a North American Jew already wary of Israeli intentions in the West Bank, the Israeli prime minister’s announcement of immediate annexation was confirmation of our worst fears. Even though both the White House and the Israeli government walked back from their annexation talk, the intent was obvious. For me, this ‘deal’ is not an expression of hope. In fact, it will be another wedge between me and my neighbours. Support for BDS will potentially increase and leftist political parties/politicians in the United States, Canada, Britain, France and elsewhere will use this ‘deal’ as a means of bludgeoning Israel. So I am not happy.

If I am a student of history, I can see that the pattern begun in 1915 continues. The internal political needs of third parties lead them to interfere in the difficult process of nation building for two peoples struggling to actualize their aspirations. The list of failed third party attempts to impose settlements is quite long. So this ‘deal’ is just another failed attempt by outsiders to impose solutions to the Israel/Palestinian issue. I am also reminded that Egypt and Israel came to a peace treaty without outside interference, likewise Jordan and Israel.

So, as a historian, I feel vindicated.

The list of players goes on endlessly. As an Iranian, I am ecstatic about the way the document treats my Muslim co-religionists and gives me a bully pulpit from which to berate the West. As a right-wing American Christian, I am joyfully anticipating the rapture. As a liberal Christian, I am happily outraged by the continued public victimization of Palestinians.

Ultimately, most disappointed by the document are those of us yearning for an unencumbered opportunity for Israelis and Palestinians to show their united desire for a lasting peace. But once again, it seems, we’ve been sold down the river on a barge of political expediency.

From the Editor: Israel’s election and Trump’s peace plan

Michael Regenstreif, Editor

By Michael Regenstreif

Editor

It’s been three months since I last wrote about the political situation in Israel. In my November 11 column, I noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, had failed to form a governing coalition in the weeks after the September 17 election – Israel’s second inconclusive election of 2019. The mandate to attempt to form a government had passed to Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz.

“It is unlikely that Gantz will be any more successful than Netanyahu in putting together a coalition that commands at least 61 of the Knesset’s 120 seats,” I predicted, noting two possibilities: a unity government alternating the premiership or a third Israeli election in less than a year.

Attempts to form a unity government failed. Blue and White insisted that it would not form a unity government with Likud under Netanyahu as long as Netanyahu faced the possibility of criminal charges in several corruption cases. They would have been open to an agreement with Likud if the prime minister stepped aside, at least until he was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. Netanyahu, for his part, refused to accommodate the demand.

So Israelis will go to the polls on March 2 for the third time in less than a year – and the country remains under a Netanyahu caretaker government with a limited mandate to act in many areas.

Polls taken in late January once again suggest a stalemate similar to the previous two elections (assuming that Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Liberman once again refuses to support anything but a unity government).

The situation with Netanyahu’s indictments came to a head last month. The prime minister had been trying to engineer a vote in the Knesset that would have given him immunity from prosecution while still in office. On January 28, with it obvious that a majority of the Knesset would not support him, Netanyahu withdrew the immunity request and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit immediately filed charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery against Netanyahu.

The charges were filed as Netanyahu was in Washington for U.S. President Donald Trump’s unveiling of what he’d promoted for three years as the “Deal of the Century” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Although embraced enthusiastically by Netanyahu, the Palestinians, who did not participate in its drafting, have rejected the plan.

Here in Canada, Foreign Affairs Minister François-Philippe Champagne released a statement that Canada “will carefully examine the details of the U.S. initiative for the Middle East peace process,” but reiterated, “Canada has long maintained that peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties. We urge the parties to create the conditions for such negotiations to take place.”

However, it is very interesting to note that ambassadors from three small Arab countries – Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman – attended the White House event unveiling that plan. I would agree with analysts who suggest their attendance signals that the Palestinian issue has become less important to them than threats from Iran. Opposition to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East has opened the door to improved relations between Israel and parts of the Arab world. 

The timing of the plan’s release was telling. It came on a day when Trump was on trial in the U.S. Senate for impeachment from office for abuse of power, and Netanyahu, due to face voters five weeks later, was charged with criminal offences that, if he is convicted, could lead to a prison term. It’s hard not to see the timing as an attempt to change the conversations in both the United States and Israel – and, to some extent, it did, at least briefly.

I don’t expect anything to change very soon based on the Trump plan. First, there needs to be an Israeli government with a real mandate to govern. And while it’s a foregone conclusion that Trump won’t be removed from office after his Senate trial, he may or may not be in office a year from now following the U.S. election in November.