(based partially on an article on the Yesha Council website)
[Edited and translated by Hillel Fendel]
U.S. President Trump's much-touted
Deal of the Century is scheduled to be presented in the
coming weeks. Trump hopes and expects that it will bring "peace" to
the Middle East, at least between Israel and the Palestinian
Authority.
However, no matter its exact terms (currently
still clouded in secrecy), it must be studied in the context of previous peace
plans - all of which have failed - some before they started, and some just a bit
later.
The most significant pre-State peace program was the United Nations Partition Plan. It called for the division of the Land into an Arab state and a barely viable Jewish one - three parcels of land connected by checkpoints; Jerusalem was to be under international control.
The most significant pre-State peace program was the United Nations Partition Plan. It called for the division of the Land into an Arab state and a barely viable Jewish one - three parcels of land connected by checkpoints; Jerusalem was to be under international control.
Still, the Jews generally favored this
plan, and worked hard, and successfully, for its passage. The Arabs, however, opposed
it, even though they were to receive all of Transjordan and 43% of the
remainder. They embarked on a five-front war against the newborn Jewish state
in May 1948. The war ended a year later with more territory for Israel than the
UN had allotted it – and "the land was quiet for 18 years."
After the Six Day War of 1967, the
Jewish People returned to more of its ancient homeland – Judea, Binyamin,
Samaria, all of Jerusalem, as well as the strategically-critical Jordan Valley
and Golan Heights. The UN resolved that Israel must withdraw, and that the Arabs
must recognize Israel's sovereignty and independence. The Arabs rejected this
plan, refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist.
During the ensuing two decades, many
attempts were made to formulate the outline of an agreement, and to hold talks
that would end the hostility and warfare. In 1979, Israel signed a peace
agreement with the largest of its enemies, Egypt, but this brought peace only
in the Sinai Desert, not in the rest of the country.
The Madrid Conference was convened in
1991, amidst Arab Intifada violence, by US President George H.W. Bush. Though
no concrete results were achieved, it paved the way for future negotiations and
various rounds of talks that would end up producing the Oslo Accords. In that
sense, it was a terrible failure – for Oslo led to the introduction of a bona-fide
terrorist organization into the heartland of Israel, the deaths of well over
1,000 Israelis at the hands of Palestinian terrorism, and essentially drove
peace further away. Even Oslo architect Yossi Beilin has admitted that the
process failed, and has called for the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority
it created.
 |
| Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat shaking hands in front of U.S. President Bill Clinton on the White House Lawn |
The next US president to try his hand
at peacemaking was Bill Clinton – and he almost succeeded, on paper. In the year 2000, he invited
Israeli PM Ehud Barak and PA chieftain Yasser Arafat to a Camp David summit,
where Barak offered to withdraw from some 94% of the area of Judea/Samaria/Gaza,
as well as parts of Jerusalem. He even agreed to dismantle no fewer than 63
Jewish communities. But for Arafat, it wasn't good enough; it was either all or
nothing, and until then, the status quo would suit him just fine. Thus, the
talks ended in failure, and a second Intifada began.
Then came 2005 and PM Ariel Sharon's
catastrophic Disengagement from all of Gaza and parts of Samaria. Sharon
apparently felt that Arafat lacked the ability to say yes to anything, and so he
simply withdrew unilaterally. Not surprisingly to many Israelis – the Likud
membership voted against the plan before it was implemented. Though Sharon
ignored the vote, this too did not lead to peace. In fact, the withdrawal simply
allowed the Gaza terrorists to produce, unfettered, long-range rockets and
missiles that they now fire intermittently into mainland Israel.
The bottom line is that instead of
building themselves a productive, independent society, the Gazan-Hamas
terrorists concentrate on terrorism, killing more than 130 Israelis since the
Disengagement.
In 2006, Israeli leader Ehud Olmert
made the most generous offer ever presented to the Arabs of the Land of Israel
– and they still couldn't bring themselves to say yes. Olmert offered PA President-for-life (apparently) Mahmoud Abbas what should have been called the
Bargain of the Century: a PA state in almost all of Judea and Samaria, no
Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley, no Israeli sovereignty in the
Old City, international control of holy sites in Jerusalem, the
"return" of 5,000 so-called refugees, and more.
The Israeli public never got the
chance to accept or reject these far-reaching concessions, because, incredibly,
Abbas refused them first. Abbas later said, "I am not in a marketplace or
a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine – the June 4, 1967
borders – without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single
stone from Jerusalem, or from the holy Christian and Muslim places."
Then came a 2008 round of talks, and
a 2010 attempt by the Obama-Clinton team, and one three years later by John
Kerry, but nothing could get the PA to budge.
What, then, is unique about the
upcoming Trump deal?
U.S. Ambassador David Friedman hinted that the
plan is more understanding of Israel's security and other needs than any previous U.S. initiative. Speaking at the AIPAC convention two months ago, he explained
why the Trump Administration is taking a chance on offering a peace proposal:
"How can we
kick the can down the road and leave this to our successors? … Can we leave
this to an administration that may not understand the existential risk to
Israel if Judea and Samaria are overcome by terrorism [as occurred in Gaza]?
Can we leave this to an administration that may not understand the need for
Israel to maintain overriding security control of Judea and Samaria and a
permanent defense position in the Jordan Valley? Can we leave this to an
administration that may not recognize that under Israeli sovereignty, Jerusalem
for the first time in 2,000 years has become a dynamic and prosperous city
fully open to worshippers of all three Abrahamic faiths? … Can we leave this to
an administration potentially willing to penalize Israel for nothing more than
having the audacity to survive in a dangerous neighborhood, failing to
understand the threats that Israel faces or the care and humanity it deploys to
meet those threats?"
Bet El Friends Newsletter has learned that sources close to the U.S. Administration told Jewish leaders in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) that the plan does not call for the uprooting of a single Jewish home and ensures Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount. "Still, you won't like the plan," the source told Yesha leaders, "but when you oppose it, do so with respect to the U.S. Administration, which is the friendliest Israel has known."
If these are, in fact, the underlying principles of Trump's Deal of the Century, it could (unfortunately) be accepted by the Israeli government, which often voices security concerns rather than the Jewish People's right to its entire homeland. But luckily, history has shown that even when Israel doesn't stand firm for its rights, it can rely upon the Arab side to reject and diplomatic initiative, thus allowing Israel to avoid any concessions that would have been forced upon it, had Arab leaders acquiesced.
[Translation and editing by Hillel Fendel; editing by Sharona eshet Kohen]Bet El Friends Newsletter has learned that sources close to the U.S. Administration told Jewish leaders in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) that the plan does not call for the uprooting of a single Jewish home and ensures Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount. "Still, you won't like the plan," the source told Yesha leaders, "but when you oppose it, do so with respect to the U.S. Administration, which is the friendliest Israel has known."
If these are, in fact, the underlying principles of Trump's Deal of the Century, it could (unfortunately) be accepted by the Israeli government, which often voices security concerns rather than the Jewish People's right to its entire homeland. But luckily, history has shown that even when Israel doesn't stand firm for its rights, it can rely upon the Arab side to reject and diplomatic initiative, thus allowing Israel to avoid any concessions that would have been forced upon it, had Arab leaders acquiesced.