Why Israel is the biggest loser in the “Deal of the century”

January 28, 2020 might be the declaration of the End of Israel as we know it today!

There are two main aspects of the “deal of the century” that was announced in the White House earlier this January. One is the plan itself, and the second – and most significant - is the potential impact and the day after.

In terms of the plan itself, needless to repeat why it is not realistic and will never succeed. First base of any agreement is that the two parties should agree – and we know for a fact that Palestinians would never accept such a plan, to the extent that many analysts believe that the plan was made for Palestinians to reject. A point of view with which I disagree.

The parameters of the two states solution, and the basis on which the Oslo process started were “agreeing to disagree” on five final status issues that both parties must negotiate. The plan for a starter annulled all five of them: Jerusalem, Borders, Settlements, refugees and by sequence water.

It is also worth noting that the plan reflects the vision of the ideological right in Israel that has since the 70s promoted such a vision: having the land without the people; i.e. a limited autonomy for Palestinians, while keeping the sovereignty and control over the entire territory between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean; the Alon plan (1967) and Former Israeli Pm Sharon proposal in 2001, and even the projection of Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak in Camp David in 2000 are illustrative of such vision. (maps below – source: PASSIA)

Therefore; What does the plan mean? And what are the potential consequences?

The Palestinian political pragmatism since 1974 tried to turn the conflict into a "political resolution"; safeguarding Palestinian National right to independence and recognizing Israel’s existence. And regardless of any claims or counter claims on the willingness of the Palestinians since then (Arafat and President Abbas); formally the PLO did recognize Israel in 1993, that is 19 years after the famous Arafat speech in the UN basically recognizing the partition of the land based on a Two States Solution and the outcome of the 1967 war.

A Pragmatism that is still refused by many Palestinians, even seen by some as betrayal since the concept is from a nationalist Palestinian point of view was to accept the most unquestionable concession of having the Palestinian State over 22% of “Historic Palestine”.

In the meantime; the radical ideological right in Israel ever since aimed at aborting such approach. The same ideological right wing that incited for the assassination of Former Israeli PM Rabin and objected to the principle of the Oslo approach and fought against the Two States Solution is today in power in Israel.

The same right-wing ideologists managed to twin with the current American Administration, and with the appointed team of the same right wing (American) ideology. The two sides managed over the past three years to negotiate among themselves an agreement that reflects their ideology; hence a “Deal of the century” that reflects the same plan of the same Israeli right wing ideologists who have been pushing for in the past 60 years. A suggested Peace Deal that was negotiated between the US and Israel!

The aftermath of the declaration could potentially mean actual measures by the governing ideologists in Israel such as annexing the Jordan Valley, the settlements and redrawing the boundaries of Jerusalem to have the maximum amount of land with the least number of Palestinians. Such measure would be irreversible, or extremely hard to reverse with minimal chances of having an Israeli leader who would be able to stand in front of a more right leaning Israeli population and revoke such decisions.

Would that kill the two states solution formally – as some argue that it is already dead? Absolutely. But this means  putting the conflict back to its "existential" roots; since unless there is a new Nakba that would drive the 2.5 million Palestinians in the West Bank out of the land, Palestinians are here to stay and consider their most powerful weapon is merely “keep existing in Palestine”, thus the issue of “demography” will emerge much faster than anyone thinks. And for those who would argue that this might be a better solution for the Palestinians; they should take into consideration that such approach will result in a situation of “no-solution” and another 50-100 years of bloody conflict.

The outcome of “annexation” would without any doubt leaves Israel in a one state system where part of the population from a different “ethnic” and religious roots are treated as 3rd class citizens; therefore an apartheid regime that would not last for long. Taking a look at the suggested right wing ideology map crafted in the “Deal of the Century” and the map of the Apartheid in South Africa are shockingly illustrative. The other shocking part is the silence and no-action approach by the rest of the international community that is watching such bath being drawn and doing absolutely nothing about it!