New Palestinian Peace Plan May Succeed, Despite Palestinian Leadership

On January 28, the White House, at a meeting both with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Natanyahu and his domestic political opponent Lt. General Benny Gantz, introduced the most comprehensive proposal for peace between the Jewish State and the Palestinian people in a two-state solution,

The “Peace to Prosperity” concept differs from its predecessors in that in provides significant expanded territory for the Palestinians, as well as links between Gaza and the West Bank, and a capital in a portion of Jerusalem. Geography, however, may be the lesser of the difficulties in getting a Palestinian agreement. Gaza is controlled by the terrorist organization Hamas, which at this point continues to oppose any compromise with Israel, a state the group does not even recognize as having the right to exist. The refusal of the Palestinian leadership, at times widely seen as corrupt, to compromise in the past has caused considerable suffering to their people. In 2008, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas rejected a plan for sovereignty. Yassar Arafat refused to sign on to the Camp David accords in the 1970s which also would have fulfilled most his people’s goals.

The Arab news service Al Jazeera cited a number of Palestinians sharply rejecting the concept, terming it a “New Balfour Declaration,” a reference to the a public statement issued by the British government in announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people.” There have several past attempts at a settlement that would have given the Palestinians most of what they sought, only to be ultimately rejected by the Palestinian leadership. The current proposal notes that “For nearly a century, international leaders, diplomats, and scholars have debated the issues and attempted to resolve this conflict…Over the decades, many proposals and ideas have been put forward, but elements of those plans were unachievable given the realities on the ground and in the broader Middle East. “ The proposal then goes on to explain that “The world has changed greatly during this period, as have the security challenges facing the Middle East…” There is a great deal behind that observation. The proposal reiterates that .” The State of Israel has made peace with two of its neighbors. It made peace with the Arab Republic of Egypt in 1979 and it made peace with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1994, two countries with which the State of Israel had fought multiple wars and numerous border skirmishes. The State of Israel has also exchanged sizeable territories for the sake of peace, as it did when it withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula in exchange for peace with the Arab Republic of Egypt. “ Just six months into his administration, President Trump and the Saudis significantly improved U.S. relations with the wealthiest Arab state. Overriding all other considerations for Middle Eastern nations is the fear of Iranian expansionism. Israel may not be liked, but it is seen as something of a bulwark against Iran’s aggression.

The economics of this latest plan make it one that would be truly embarrassing for the Palestinian leadership to reject, considering the hardships currently endured in both the West Bank and Gaza. Under the proposal, billions of dollars of investment in the electricity, water, and telecommunications sectors, increasing generation capacity would be facilitated, while creating efficient transmission and distribution networks. The plan also calls for, following the adoption of key policy reforms and the construction of essential infrastructure, extraordinary private-sector investment in entrepreneurship, small businesses, tourism, agriculture, housing, manufacturing, and natural resources. The goal of early-stage investment will be to remove constraints to growth and to target key projects that build momentum, generate jobs, and increase gross domestic product.

Patients are requested not to use anti-inflammatory canada viagra medications. To individuals that are at the moment going through this health condition, he on line levitra does not get erections for satisfactory enough for enjoyable act. Unlike their synthetic counterparts, herbal male enhancement supplement pills are preferred by large populace as they don’t pose any side effect and effect is almost the similar to the women viagra order . So, say bye to premature ejaculation and sildenafil viagra de pfizer Erectile Dysfunction is very common in males of all age and gender.Inability problem persists in society from a long period, but its cure was absent till decades.

Illustration: Palestinian flag (Pixabay)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.