Continuity vs. Overreach in the Trump Peace Plan (Part 1): Borders and Jerusalem
- David Makovsky
- Content Type
- Policy Brief
- The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
- If the latest U.S. effort winds up backing the Palestinians into a territorial corner from the outset, then Washington
may not be able to move the process any closer to direct negotiations.
The newly released U.S. peace plan marks a very significant shift in favor of the current Israeli government’s view,
especially when compared to three past U.S. initiatives: (1) the Clinton Parameters of December 2000, (2)
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s “Annapolis Process” of 2007-2008, and (3) Secretary of State John Kerry’s
2013-2014 initiative. The message is clear: the Trump administration will no longer keep sweetening the deal with
every Palestinian refusal, a criticism some have aimed at previous U.S. efforts.
Yet the new plan raises worrisome questions of its own. Will its provisions prove so disadvantageous to the
proposed Palestinian state that they cannot serve as the basis for further negotiations? And would such overreach
enable Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas to sway Arab states who have signaled that they want to
give the proposal a chance, convincing them to oppose it instead? If so, the plan may wind up perpetuating the
current diplomatic impasse and setting the stage for a one-state reality that runs counter to Israel’s identity as a
Jewish, democratic state.
This two-part PolicyWatch will address these questions by examining how the Trump plan compares to past U.S.
initiatives when it comes to the conflict’s five core final-status issues. Part 1 focuses on two of these issues:
borders and Jerusalem. Part 2 examines security, refugees, and narrative issues.
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Territorial Disputes, Borders, Negotiation
- Political Geography
- Middle East, Israel, Palestine, North America, United States of America