Q&A
- +1
Amr Hamzawy, Andrew Leber, Eric Lob, …
{
"authors": [
"Marwan Muasher"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"Palestine",
"Levant"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Trump’s Israeli–Palestinian Plan Likely to Heighten Mideast Tensions
The international community will have to come to grips with the death of the two-state solution. It is no longer taboo to talk about alternatives, including variations of the one-state solution.
Published on Sep 18, 2018
Source: Axios
This year's UN General Assembly session promises to bring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict back to center stage. The Trump administration's recent decisions on Jerusalem and withdrawal of funding for the UN agency that supports Palestinian refugees, together with a possible announcement at the UN of its "deal of the century," indicate that it is attempting to remove key issues for the Palestinians from the negotiating table.
The big picture: The U.S.’ apparent strategy is to decide a priori the fate of Jerusalem and refugees in Israel's favor, and to force the Palestinians to accept an inferior deal. Whether the U.S. unveils the details of its plan during the UNGA session or not, it’s likely to exacerbate tensions in the region.
The U.S. seems to want to bypass the Palestinian National Authority by forging close ties with other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, in the hopes that they can be relied upon to bring the Palestinians around. This strategy assumes that Arab states would be able to do so, and that they’d be willing to accept a territorial deal that excludes East Jerusalem.
But the fact remains that the parameters of this deal are perceived to be so inferior, indeed insulting, that no Palestinian or Arab leader would accept it. Visits by presidential advisers Jason Greenblatt and Jared Kushner in recent months have underscored this fact. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas recently revealed, for example, that both he and the Jordanian leadership rejected a U.S. proposal for a confederation of Palestinian areas.
The international community seems to be ignoring that the majority of the new Palestinian generation have lost hope in the two-state solution and shifted their focus to demanding civic and political rights and raising the costs of the occupation. The most likely outcome is a continuation of the status quo, while the ongoing construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem — now home to more than 650,000 settlers — forecloses prospects for a two-state solution.
The bottom line: The international community will have to come to grips with the death of the two-state solution. It is no longer taboo to talk about alternatives, including variations of the one-state solution. That presents a whole new set of problems as the Jewish and Palestinian populations in areas under Israel’s control approach parity.
About the Author
Marwan Muasher
Vice President for Studies
Marwan Muasher is vice president for studies at Carnegie, where he oversees research in Washington and Beirut on the Middle East. Muasher served as foreign minister (2002–2004) and deputy prime minister (2004–2005) of Jordan, and his career has spanned the areas of diplomacy, development, civil society, and communications.
- The Myriad Problems With the Iran Ceasefire
- The Iran War Is Uncovering the Weakness in U.S.-Gulf TiesCommentary
Marwan Muasher
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
- Power, Pathways, and Policy: Grounding Central Asia’s Digital AmbitionsCommentary
Central Asia’s digital ambitions are achievable, but only if policy is aligned with the region’s physical constraints.
Aruzhan Meirkhanova
- The Afghanistan–Pakistan War Poses Awkward Questions for RussiaCommentary
Not only does the fighting jeopardize regional security, it undermines Russian attempts to promote alternatives to the Western-dominated world order.
Ruslan Suleymanov
- Moldova Floats a New Approach to Its Transnistria ConundrumCommentary
Moldova’s reintegration plan was drawn up to demonstrate to Brussels that Chișinău is serious about the Transnistria issue—and to get the West to react.
Vladimir Solovyov
