You are here

What to expect from the peace deal?

Aug 04,2019 - Last updated at Aug 04,2019

In his latest tour to the Middle East, US President Donald Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner is working on moving to the next phase of their regional peace plan. On his current trip, there appears to be a shift to the practical and political side, following the workshop in Manama in June, where the focus was on the economic vision.

It does appear that the American plan is to continue to move forward, regardless of the push back or response from Arabs. The approach is based on the idea that there is no alternative plan being discussed and that this plan focusses on the economy in a region where most of its people are suffering economically. Further, the alternative to this approach that brings the potential for peace and economic development is the status quo, which is more violence and deprivation.

While it may be that protests or refusal amongst Arabs to accept the process is unlikely to be a major obstacle to the approach, the basis of true peace is consensus, or at least something close to it. 

In the Manama workshop, the Americans clearly presented that the economy and development are central pillars, and that corruption is a major obstacle to development. It must also be understood though that broad regional development will require Arab involvement, which means that some political concessions or arrangements will be necessary for a comprehensive and sustainable peace.

Since 1948, the evolution of the situation on the ground has demonstrated the contradictions between the visions and positions of both sides. And now what was refused in 1967 appears to be the very demands being made today. So, the ongoing evolution of the situation on the ground could continue to remain disconnected from the negotiating positions or offers being made.

This approach of focusing efforts on the practical outcomes on the ground and postponing a political solution has created control over the status quo, while blocking peace talks and thus putting all the power in the hands of one side. Control over the situation on the ground limits the influence of any other international player, so the longer a peace treaty is blocked, the more things stay the same.

The American approach continues to develop regardless of the level of support amongst other stakeholders, but they may want to consider bringing other considerations into play, as while economic growth can improve people’s lives, it cannot address the ongoing and unsolvable problems of history, which will always lie below the surface and run the risk of peace collapsing from simple triggers.

Arab leaders might give many promises to any peace plan, but, in fact, nothing much can be done, and let us not forget that the “de facto situation” includes also the demographic side that goes, at the end, progressively in favour of Palestinians.

up
61 users have voted.

Add new comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
8 + 2 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.

Newsletter

Get top stories and blog posts emailed to you each day.