New ideas for Israeli-Palestinian peace process unlikely, but one can hope

A year ago, Donald Trump — who views himself as a world-class dealmaker — expressed hope that he could help achieve what he called “the ultimate deal”: Peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now, recent articles in US, European and Israeli media suggest that the Trump administration is drafting a proposal for new peace talks, which reportedly might be completed in January 2018.

Some political leaders have expressed optimism that the “outsiders” in Washington will bring fresh ideas and perspectives to an ossified conflict. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, said in London on Nov. 3 that the Trump team is trying to “think out of the box.” At a meeting with Trump in September, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas expressed optimism about Trump’s efforts.

It is nearly impossible to imagine that the Trump team will develop ideas that no one has ever considered before, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is perhaps modern history’s most studied conflict. But it is possible that the Trump administration could throw aside some of the old political, intellectual and personal restrictions on US policy toward the conflict, and develop a more successful approach.

While the American negotiating team is heavy on people with strong ties to Israel, it is theoretically possible that a solidly pro-Israel US government might be better placed to convince it to make concessions.

Based on publicly available information so far, it is not clear what the Trump team will offer. But media reports suggest that Washington might propose to recognize a Palestinian state — though not along the 1967 borders — and work with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states to offer a generous financial package to the Palestinians.

Reports suggest that Washington is very sympathetic to Israel’s security demands — which, if fully granted, would block territorial integrity and sovereignty in the West Bank — and to its refusal to remove settlements.

The White House has said it has no specific timeline for talks, and insists it will not impose a plan on either side. Reports suggest that the Trump team might propose a gradual peace process, starting with initial steps and saving the most difficult issues for later. While it is possible that the US team will present a new approach and be willing to use Washington’s influence to persuade both sides to make real concessions, it is unlikely.

There is no indication from recent media reports, US officials’ statements or reports about their meetings in the Middle East to suggest that the Trump administration has developed fresh answers to the fundamental problems that have bedeviled past negotiations, including the status of occupied Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Critically, there is nothing to suggest that Washington is taking a more balanced approach as mediator. Many Palestinians do not believe that their voices might be better heard than in the past. A recent poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center found that while a majority of Palestinians support negotiations with Israel in principle, nearly 80 percent believe that Trump is “not serious” about renewing negotiations.

Then a week ago, the US government withdrew its approval for the existence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington unless the PLO engages in significant negotiations within 90 days. The US move clearly looked like an effort to pressure Palestinians into negotiations, without any similar public pressure on Israel. In response, the Palestinian leadership froze communications with US officials. On Friday, Washington reportedly revised its position, allowing the PLO office to remain open but under new limitations.

The only fundamentally new development that seems likely to affect negotiations is the shift in the Middle East’s security picture. With Daesh largely defeated, for now, and US, Israeli and several Arab leaders focused on Iran, Netanyahu and some US officials have suggested that what is new today is that some Arab partners are willing to work with Israel and willing to pressure the Palestinians — and reward them financially — to reach a deal.

If so, the big question might be how far the US, Israel and other regional powers can pressure the Palestinians. It is unlikely that any deal on offer will include a sovereign Palestinian state with a manageable degree of geographical integrity — which seems the minimum that most Palestinians would accept.

Abbas has limited support and credibility among Palestinians; if other parties push him too hard to take what most Palestinians see as an unacceptable deal, his rule over the West Bank — and potential rule over Gaza — could break. The Palestinians have no other decent options, but that does not necessarily mean they can be persuaded to accept the end of their national aspirations.

For those who have followed the ups and downs of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations over the years and decades, there is a tendency to fall into one of two categories: Those who believe that peace will never happen, and those for whom hope springs eternal. The Nov. 29 anniversary of 70 years since the UN voted to divide Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab one is a reminder of how long this conflict has endured without a resolution.

Neither hardened cynicism nor naive optimism will improve the lives of Palestinians and Israelis, so let us give the Washington outsiders a chance. The world would be a better place if they truly bring fresh ideas, and a more effective use of US leverage and facilitation, to peace negotiations.

But if their plan is to accept most of Israel’s demands, impose new pressure on the Palestinians and indefinitely postpone the most critical issues, the Trump team is just as likely to crash against the rocks of conflicting Israeli and Palestinian national aspirations as have so many attempts at peace in the past.

— Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risks. Her previous positions include deputy director for advisory with Oxford Analytica, and managing editor of Arms Control Today. Twitter: @KBAresearch