Tag: palestinian statehood
Trump Forged Gaza Deal By Dropping His Rejection Of A Palestinian State

Trump Forged Gaza Deal By Dropping His Rejection Of A Palestinian State

Donald Trump deserves ample credit for brokering the ceasefire in Gaza, the return of Israel’s hostages, and the surge of humanitarian aid that may prevent a worse catastrophe for the suffering Palestinians. Should he feel that he has not received enough praise, he will laud himself until nobody can bear to hear another word.

But among the many ironies surrounding this moment, one fact seems central: There would be no deal if Trump and his negotiating team had not abandoned their longstanding opposition to a Palestinian state – and forced the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu to accept that change against their will.

Only weeks ago, Trump denounced the European recognition of Palestine as a “reward” to Hamas for the “horrible atrocities” perpetrated on October 7, 2023. He mocked France in particular, saying that its official support of a Palestinian state “doesn’t matter” and didn’t “carry any weight.”

Yet in hindsight, the Europeans were clearly correct to insist that only the revival of a two-state solution, much mocked in the United States, would create conditions for a ceasefire and a serious peace plan. Trump undoubtedly learned as much in his consultations with his friends (and business partners) in the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia – who could not have brought sufficient pressure on Hamas to agree to the deal’s terms, including its own disarmament and sidelining, without that fundamental concession. To be acceptable to those regimes, from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi to Doha to Ankara, any resolution had to include a Palestinian state.

That is among the reasons why the 20-point agreement that undergirds this ceasefire, and today’s joyous release of hostages and prisoners on both sides, is worth reading in full. It outlines a process for rebuilding and restoring Gaza that junks Trump’s earlier schemes to throw all the Gazans out of their homes for a gold-plated Mediterranean Las Vegas.

Instead, the deal envisions a transitional period that will conclude with a “reformed” Palestinian Authority resuming governance of the strip, and pledges, in clause 12, that “No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.”

The framework for rebuilding “a better Gaza” includes various ideas that must have appealed to Trump, including a special board of world leaders including former British Prime Minister Tony Blair that the US president will chair. Whether those details can be sustained will be seen as the region’s future unfolds.

For reasons best known to the negotiators, however, the most important clauses were reserved for last – perhaps because they depend on the implementation of the prior clauses, perhaps because they were resisted by Israel until the very end. Set down in print, they make an indisputable departure from the hard-right positions of the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government.

The existence of a Palestinian state has long been anathema not just to Trump and Netanyahu but to the Republican right in Washington. Last month, Republican members of Congress sent a mesage to our allies in Europe and Canada scolding them for recognizing a nascent Palestine. Like Trump, who deleted the GOP's traditional platform plank supporting a two-state solution, they were content to undercut the Palestinians and allow Israel free reign everywhere from Jerusalem and the West Bank to the Golan Heights.

The stark difference between then and now is stated firmly in clauses 19 and 20 of the Trump deal, which make a promise that the world will have to redeem:

“19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognise as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.

“20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.”

All the parties to this deal face a long and demanding path toward those worthy goals, and their sincerity will be tested repeatedly along the way. There can be little doubt that Netanyahu and perhaps Trump too will attempt to stall and undo those historic changes. But if the American president deserves the acclaim he is receiving today, it is largely owed to his public renunciation of the hardliners in his own party and the Israeli right.

Joe Conason is founder and editor-in-chief of The National Memo. He is also editor-at-large of Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative reporting organization formerly known as The Investigative Fund. His latest book is The Longest Con: How Grifters, Swindlers and Frauds Hijacked American Conservatism (St. Martin's Press, 2024).

Why The U.S. Cannot Afford To Veto Palestinian Statehood

President Obama has vocally endorsed a two-state solution as his preferred outcome to the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, as recently as 12 months ago he said that he hoped the U.N. would soon welcome Palestine as its newest member. But now, as a result of pressure from Israel and from Congress, he is preparing to veto a measure to acknowledge Palestinian statehood. He should think carefully before he acts, however: The veto would be a no-win proposition for the United States. It would not advance American policy goals, and it could have serious negative consequences for America’s reputation around the world.

The United States should consider what will happen if the United Nations recognizes Palestinian statehood: Although the Palestinian Authority could claim greater legitimacy in negotiations, it would not change the facts on the ground. Israel would still be negotiating from a huge position of strength. The United States would still guarantee Israel’s security. The Palestinian Liberation Organization will still be required to uphold the commitments to security cooperation that it has made in past negotiations. Although opponents of Palestine’s push for statehood fear that it would kill future peace talks, Mahmoud Abbas has promised, “No matter what happens at the United Nations… we have to return to negotiations.” While U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood would be an important symbolic gesture, at the end of the day it will be just that: symbolic.

Weigh that against the tangible consequences that could arise from an American veto. Mahmoud Abbas’ government, which has repeatedly committed to non-violent negotiations with Israel, would absorb a critical blow to its legitimacy. When Abbas falters domestically as a result, it might naturally lead to increased support for his main rivals: Hamas. Allowing Hamas to gain a more prominent place in the Palestinian leadership is certainly not in the United States’ best interest, nor that of Israel.

A veto would also lead to serious consequences for American foreign policy. Two of our most critical international partners have strongly warned the United States against using its veto power. China’s state-run newspaper, The China Daily, warned that “if the US chooses to fly in the face of world opinion and block the Palestine UN bid next week, not only will Israel become more isolated but tensions in the region will be heightened even more.”

Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi ambassador to the U.S., also warned in an editorial for the New York Times that “the ‘special relationship’ between Saudi Arabia and the United States would increasingly be seen as toxic by the vast majority of Arabs and Muslims” if the U.S. vetoes Palestinian statehood, and that “Saudi leaders would be forced by domestic and regional pressures to adopt a far more independent and assertive foreign policy” in the event of a veto.

The United States cannot afford to jeopardize its relationships with China and Saudi Arabia — both of whose support is critical for American economic, military, and diplomatic goals — over a largely symbolic measure. The time has come for the U.S. to acknowledge that there is a difference between supporting Israel and unilaterally and blindly defending all Israeli positions. As long as the United States continues to support Israel in negotiations and guarantee her security, the Jewish State will not be hurt in any tangible way by U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood.

The new, democratic governments that are rising as a result of Arab Spring could provide new hope in the Arab-Israeli peace process. That potential will be wasted if the United States stops Palestinian statehood in its tracks. America should continue to make every effort to persuade Palestine to return to the negotiating table and abandon its plan to petition the U.N. for statehood. But if it does come to a vote, then the United States must act in its own interests — not Israel’s — and refrain from vetoing the motion.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World