Why is Trump’s ＂Middle East Peace Plan＂ just a ＂Haihu Manor Show＂？
Before US President Trump announced the "Middle East Peace Plan" on January 28, although experts on Middle East issues in various countries were waiting for the final details, observers familiar with the Palestinian-Israeli issue and the US Middle East policy had already had little expectation for Trump’s "new plan".
Since Trump came to power, he has called Jerusalem "the capital of Israel" and supported Israel’s "annexation of the West Bank" explicitly or implicitly. By 2018, major international public opinions have continuously exposed the details of the "century agreement" being brewed in the United States, as well as the "peace to prosperity" plan presented by Trump’s son-in-law Kushner at the Bahrain Summit in May 2019. Everything has framed the main contents of the "new plan" launched by Trump at this press conference. The scene announced by Trump’s new plan has therefore become a "live show", and some media even use "Mar-a-Lago gathering" to describe the release scene of Trump’s new plan. It seems that the composition of the show is greater than the serious attitude, and the psychology of completing the task is more urgent than doing practical things.
Who decides who, America or Israel?
Trump’s maverick has been reflected in many international and domestic sensitive issues. Its biggest feature is that he no longer insists on "political correctness", abandons the consideration of morality and obligation, and instead makes decisions according to realistic interests. On the Palestinian-Israeli issue, Trump is also "not taking the usual path".
Trump has experienced a gradual learning process on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. When meeting with visiting Palestinian President Abbas in March 2017, Trump modestly said that he was still "learning". Trump’s Middle East team, such as son-in-law kushner, consultant greenblatt, ambassador to Israel Friedman and others, frequently went to Israel, Palestine and other Arab countries to exchange views on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and seek possible solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
However, the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli issue obviously makes it difficult for Trump himself and his Middle East team to start. So Trump turned to abandon the constraint of "political correctness" and tended to solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem by "recognizing reality". For example, on the issue of Jerusalem, Trump called it "the capital of Israel", but also claimed that he would accept the future decision of Palestine and Israel on the status of Jerusalem; On the Golan Heights issue, Trump also believes that Israel has actually controlled it for decades, so it should recognize Israel’s rights in the occupied Golan Heights; On the issue of the West Bank, Trump has repeatedly hinted that he will recognize the Jewish settlements built by Israel and oppose handing over the whole West Bank to the future "Palestinian state".
Trump’s "pro-Israel" position and behavior on the Palestinian-Israeli issue are undoubtedly closely related to his own and his team’s "Jewish" background, and many criticisms of Trump’s position on the Palestinian-Israeli issue are also derived from this. For example, the Jewish background of Trump’s son-in-law, kushner’s family, the Jewish identity of his advisers on the Palestinian-Israeli issue, and the financial support and support from Jewish wealthy businessmen Sheldon and his wife during the campaign (the Sheldon and his wife were sitting in the front row at the ceremony of Trump announcing the "new plan" on the Palestinian-Israeli issue on the evening of 28th) all show the "rationality" of Trump’s favoritism towards Israel on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. But this cognition of "identity determines decision-making" actually ignores the dilemma faced by the United States on the Palestinian-Israeli issue and the complexity of the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
For the United States, the Palestinian-Israeli issue has become difficult to solve. On the one hand, many people have a misconception that "the United States can decide Israel and Israel can decide the Palestinian-Israeli issue". The first half of this cognition is a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between the United States and Israel. In fact, the United States may be able to influence Israel, but it is difficult to decide Israel’s internal affairs and diplomacy.
The United States has indeed given Israel a lot of help and support in history, but it does not mean that Israel has no autonomy and independence at all. Even during the Obama period, the relationship between the United States and Israel was at a low ebb. Israel also resisted the "nuclear agreement" signed by the Obama administration and Iran for a long time, and publicly criticized the Obama administration for "favoring Palestine" on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. In the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Israel has long supported and sympathized with Russia despite the opposition of the United States, trying to maintain its policy autonomy under the pressure of the United States.
On the other hand, Israel is also unable to fully guide the United States. There is a view that "Jews control the United States, while Israel is a Jewish-dominated country, so Israel controls the United States." In the United States, the influence of the Jewish community is really great. The book "Israeli Lobbying Group and American Foreign Policy" written by Mearsheimer at that time also revealed the great influence of Israel on the United States. However, this influence needs to be transmitted through American Jewish communities, and the relationship between American Jewish communities is also very complicated. Different Jewish communities have different expectations and views on Israel’s national ideology, domestic policies and diplomatic ideas. Even Israel’s domestic academic circles believe that they have not been able to organize Israeli citizens and Jewish groups in the United States well and exert greater influence on American domestic politics, academic circles and public opinion. In recent years, the growing influence of the BDS movement in the United States is the best proof (Editor’s Note: "BDS Movement" means boycotting [Boycott], divesting [Divestment] and [Sanctions], which is a global movement aimed at putting pressure on Israel and calling on the Israeli government to stop occupying Palestinian land, respect the equal rights and interests of Arab Israelis and respect the right of return of Palestinian refugees living overseas).
Therefore, the relationship between the United States and Israel can hardly be described as "the United States decides Israel" or "Israel decides the United States". In fact, both the United States and Israel have complicated social and political forces inside, and both the United States and Israel make the most rational decisions on the Palestinian-Israeli issue according to reality.
The Palestinian-Israeli issue entering a "dead end"
The current settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli issue means that peace has entered a "dead end". First of all, the level of trust between the Palestinian and Israeli people is already in jeopardy. In the early 1990s, the theory of "contact brings peace", that is, the academic hypothesis that more dialogue and understanding will resolve contradictions, has been proved to be empty talk.
During my life in Israel, I often met Jewish students from the United States and Europe. When they returned to Israel, they were often optimistic that if "Jews learn Arabic" and "Palestinians learn Hebrew", then "peace will come". Some non-profit organizations "mix classes" for Jewish students and Palestinian students, and organize dialogue between Palestinian adults and Jewish adults, watch movies together, get together and so on. However, friendliness at the individual level is actually difficult to translate into understanding at the political level, and individual behavior is also difficult to be equated with group behavior.
Therefore, the author sees that many American or European Jewish youths who once had illusions have changed from the "left wing" calling for peace between Palestine and Israel and concessions to the "right wing" hostile to Palestine after several years of social life in Israel. Of course, not all Israeli Jews uphold the right-wing political concept and hate and are hostile to the Palestinians, but the distrust between Israel and Palestine is decreasing, and the distrust of the prospect of peaceful coexistence between them is a reality.
Secondly, the increasingly complex social and political relations in Israel have also hindered Israel from "speaking with one voice." The achievement of any peace will inevitably mean that one or all parties will make concessions to a certain extent, and the premise of concessions must be that the concession party can have absolute prestige and suppress domestic opposition voices. This does not exist in the current Palestinian and Israeli sides.
In the 1990s, the Israeli-Palestinian peace, especially the Oslo peace process, was opened, and the important prerequisite was that both sides could basically speak with one voice. The left-wing Labor Party in Israel (now it has declined into a "second-rate party" due to the "second generation in power" and internal disputes) can reach a certain tacit understanding with the right-wing Likud Group, and then make concessions on key issues. On the other hand, today’s Israeli political arena, the rise of religious right-wing groups, the huge gap between the discourse of left-wing parties and mainstream society, and the opposition between European Jews, Arab Jews, African Jews and Russian Jews on social issues have seriously torn the foundation of Israeli political cohesion. From the end of 2018 to the present, Israel has failed to successfully form a government after two general elections. The division and opposition in Israel on many issues of future internal affairs and diplomacy are rare in its history. Israel can no longer speak with "one voice", and it is bound to be unable to make substantive concessions on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
Third, the internal division of Palestine has also made it impossible for Palestine to unite into a force. In the early 1990s, when the overseas Palestinian resistance groups led by Arafat returned, they were regarded as "heroes" by the Palestinian people, and their prestige was unprecedented. However, with the performance of the Palestinian National Authority led by Fatah, especially the appearance of corruption, disputes and various scandals, the Palestinian people’s trust in the Palestinian National Authority has been declining. At the same time, the rise of Hamas, with the political attribute of Islam, also shows the traditional rift between "secularism-religion" and "overseas-homeland" in Palestine to a great extent. This rift reached its peak in the conflict between Hamas and Fatah in 2006. In recent years, the more radical Palestinian Islamic Jihad organization "Djihad" has tried to copy the successful experience of Hamas in those years, and by constantly provoking Israelis in Gaza, it has eroded Hamas’s ruling authority, thus enhancing its influence. Fatah has been dragging its feet on the issue of successor for a long time, and dahlan, who is in exile, has been trying to influence Fatah’s internal process in various forms, which makes it impossible for Palestinians to speak with one voice. Any concession may be used by political opponents to attack themselves, making it impossible for Palestine to make rational concessions at the negotiating table.
Finally, the sensitivity and importance of the Palestinian-Israeli issue in the Middle East have also been greatly reduced, and nationalism has defeated various pan-identity ideologies. The history of the 20th century has proved that nationalism is the ultimate winner. Perhaps nationalism has various drawbacks, but it is the general trend. At Trump’s "press conference", there were not only some politicians and celebrities from the United States, but also ambassadors from the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Bahrain to the United States, showing the support of the Gulf Arab countries for Trump’s "new plan" on the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
Historically, the Palestinian-Israeli issue has always been a tool used by Arab countries to "fight internally". Whether the Egyptian army led by Nasser was defeated by Israel in 1967 (when Egypt transferred its elite soldiers to Yemen to compete with Saudi Arabia) or the delicate relationship between Syria and Jordan and Israel, the Palestinian-Israeli issue has always been a "political correctness" in the Arab world, rather than a real core issue.
In 1987, King Hussein of Jordan renounced "representing the Palestinian people" and admitted that nationalism replaced pan-Arabism, which showed that nationalism was the historical trend of the development of the Middle East world, whether you like it or not. Since 2011, Arab countries in the Middle East have generally fallen into internal disputes, people in different countries have begun to pay attention to their own problems, and the Palestinian-Israeli issue has gradually become a marginal topic. In this context, it is just a pipe dream to mobilize other Arab countries to help solve the Palestinian-Israeli problem.
The United States can’t decide Israel or Palestine’s internal affairs and diplomacy, the two sides don’t trust each other, they can’t unify their internal voices, and the Arab "brothers" are unwilling to provide practical help, which makes the United States have to re-examine the Palestinian-Israeli policy. Therefore, Trump chose to "respect reality", that is, based on Israel’s actual control of Jerusalem and most parts of the West Bank, to oppress Palestine to make concessions by buying money, and to change the past principle of "land for peace" into "money for peace" to propose a plan for the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
In fact, Trump should also be very clear that no matter what kind of plan is proposed, Palestinian-Israeli peace cannot be achieved. The Palestinian-Israeli issue has become a dead knot. No matter who takes over, Palestine and Israel cannot achieve a mutually satisfactory peace agreement. In this context, the upcoming presidential election has become the main consideration to promote Trump’s peace plan. It is precisely because of this that Trump’s new plan conference can only be a wonderful "Haihu Manor Show".
(Contributed by Wang Jin, the author is an associate professor at the Middle East Institute of Northwest University and a researcher at the Syrian Research Center of Northwest University)