Immediately following the rollout of U.S. President Donald Trump’s much anticipated Peace to Prosperity plan, Jared Kushner observed to Christiane Amanpour that some of criticism of his efforts came from former mediators who had tried and failed to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Having worked on this interminable problem for the better part of two decades under both Republican and Democratic administrations and having relentlessly hammered what I considered to be a not-ready-for-prime-time peace plan, there’s little doubt that I was one of the folks he had in mind. Still, to Kushner’s credit, since assuming his role as his father-in-law’s peace envoy he had kindly and respectfully solicited my advice, among others.
What follows are the four most important lessons I conveyed. That he didn’t take my advice is hardly surprising. After all, I was a failed peacemaker, and he made it pretty clear in our first encounter that he was determined to do things quite differently. Fair enough. We had our chance under previous Republican and Democratic presidents. And now it was his turn.
But I guess my main message didn’t get through. My observations were shaped by failure and offered in an effort to prevent its reoccurrence. I’m not an admirer of this president. But I told Kushner that if he succeeded, I’d be one of the first to break open a bottle of champagne; and if he failed to present something credible, he could count on me to say so.
Here’s what I told him.
1. Mission Impossible
The first time I met Kushner, I half-jokingly quipped that I wish my father-in-law had as much confidence in me as his had in him, because he’d been given an impossible job. Given the gaps between the two sides on all the core issues, especially Jerusalem and its borders, the depth of mistrust between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and the divisive politics on both sides, the odds of a big plan succeeding were slim to none.
He said his father-in-law wanted a big peace plan. I said fine. But be very careful. If he disrespected the issues and blatantly favored one side over the other, he could end up making the situation much worse.
2. Don’t Ignore the Past
I quoted Faulkner in Requiem for a Nun: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” And I made it clear that applied in spades to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If there was an issue where the past was prologue, this was it. Instead of arbitrarily discarding what came before, especially in terms of where both sides were, I advised him to study it for ways to shape a different kind of future, while heeding its lessons. He didn’t necessarily have to be trapped by the past; but he couldn’t ignore it. I told him that if you don’t know where you’ve been, chances of knowing where you can go are pretty slim. The past doesn’t have to be a prison. But you can’t start de novo, or somehow pretend it didn’t exist. He seemed to me intent on doing precisely that and doing it his own way—like a kind of Frank Sinatra of the peace process.
3. Don’t Be Israel’s Lawyer
I told him I had retrieved that phrase from Henry Kissinger’s memoirs for former secretary of state James Baker, who loved it and lived by those words when he attended the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991. That didn’t mean the United States wasn’t Israel’s closest ally; indeed, Baker established a very good relationship with then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir, despite the tensions.
I made clear that Kushner’s client isn’t Israel, or the Palestinians, but an agreement. You need to advocate for both sides, otherwise you can’t possibly succeed. Kushner said he was going to make it impossible for Netanyahu to say no to Trump, by making it unmistakably clear that the United States had Israel’s back. That’s fine, I replied. But if it’s all honey for Israel and only vinegar for the Palestinians, there was zero chance this would work.
4. What is success?
Finally, Jared Kushner asked me how I would judge success. I said to him that I would be impressed if, the day after the plan was announced, Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs, and Europeans—indeed the whole international community—basically said: “You know, there are things in here we don’t like. But we must give the Trump administration credit, because they really struggled fairly and honestly with the issues and have produced a framework for negotiations that could result in an agreement.” If that was the reaction, he would have scored a huge victory. However, the last thing the United States needed was another failed peace plan.
Sadly, that’s almost certainly what we have now. It will be worse than failure, if the United States gives a green light to the Israeli annexation of the Jordan Valley or the vast majority of the West Bank settlements. But even if the current Netanyahu government doesn’t act that way, the terms of this deal are so preternaturally weighted toward Israeli needs and requirements, and against Palestinian interests on statehood and Jerusalem, that the plan simply doesn’t constitute a basis for serious negotiations, let alone an agreement.
But then again, it’s quite possible—perhaps even likely—that at some point, having been given responsibility for fixing a problem that he knew he couldn’t solve, the Kushner calculus shifted to other metrics for success.
First, bucking up Netanyahu’s political durability so that he might still be around in November 2020 to be used as a prop in Trump’s reelection campaign, and of course to shore up Trump’s evangelical and conservative base.
Second, putting out a vision, rather than an operational plan, that reframes U.S. policy toward a two-state solution that tracks and hews very closely to the strong pro-Israeli views and emotions of the plan’s architects. The Trump administration can’t be blamed for failing to help produce a two-state solution; right now, no administration could. But Trump’s actions may very well help bury the possibility of one on his watch.
Comments(5)
The two-state solution is to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what the flat earth was to Christopher Columbus. All of official Israel (military and civilian alike) know that a viable West Bank Palestinian State is incompatible with the Jewish State's security. In this age of Gaza rockets, even the idea of a demilitarized West Bank State is an anachronism. This reality however has been known for a very long time, even before the age of rockets. In the old days, mortars would have done the job nicely given the chance (sic). This reality is precisely why the Palestinians failed to accept the 95% of the territory that was offered in the years 2000 and 2001. In the final analysis, the Palestinians want to erode Israeli geographic security by establishing a border with Jordan. They would use this border as a mechanism for the smuggling of military equipment into their territory, and they would continue their strong relationship with Iran. Peace is not now -- nor has it ever been -- on the agenda of the PLO or the Hamas leadership. The simple truth of the matter is: That Israel is simply indefensible with a nine-mile-wide border and it must possess the Jordan River Valley. And Israel cannot survive with Palestine and Iran in possession of the territory overlooking a highly exposed metropolitan Tel Aviv. Israel is totally dependent on the emergency call-up of its reserve army and a safe and secure Tel Aviv is the crucial component in this vital endeavor. Israel can never allow the complete independence of the West Bank to Palestinian design. But this is exactly what Palestinians expect; and both the PLO and Hamas are certain, that over the long run, time is on their side. And it probably is, given that the idea of a West Bank State is the universally accepted paradigm and Western anti-Semitism (in the guise of anti-Zionism) is now predominant on the political Left. But this false peace agenda -- the two-state solution --is a perfect example of the Einstein definition of insanity. That is; "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result". In this context, the Trump Peace Plan is completely insane. Of course, it was dead before it was even announced. But one aspect of the plan is very encouraging, the Trump Plan appears to dramatically alter the Palestinian time perception. Now the PLO and Hamas know that annexation is a real possibility. And a Republican Administration will give Israel cover at the UN. All eyes are focused on November.
Indeed, unless Trump has secret agreement from enough Arab states to force this down The Palestinians throat, this is pro Israel on the surface only, and will foster violence, that perhaps may be part of the plan.
"Kushner said he was going to make it impossible for Netanyahu to say no to Trump, by making it unmistakably clear that the United States had Israel’s back." An odd assertion by Kushner, that. It would appear that in reality he has made it impossible for Netanyahu to say no by giving Netanyahu everything he could possibly want and giving the Palestinians ... nothing. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that this is theater rather than diplomacy, a kabuki pandering to the fantasies of Trump's base base.
For the initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.” King-Crane Commission 1922
Let's see now, virus, economy, Biden surge to defeat Trump, looks like the boy needs to take some lessons from Bush #2?
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.