Friend --
For three years, J Street has urged that no one mistakenly label the document Jared Kushner, President Trump and Ambassador Friedman are cooking up regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a “peace plan.”
A plan to resolve conflict or achieve peace demands engaging -- at a minimum -- both parties to that conflict. It involves addressing claims and concerns in a manner that allows both sides to feel they derive benefit through agreement.
The Kushner/Friedman effort has not been a remotely legitimate attempt to promote the interest of the United States in resolving the conflict or the Israeli interest in gaining international recognition of its borders and in enhancing its security. It hasn’t even pretended to engage with the Palestinians. Instead, the administration has squeezed them economically in a vain attempt to coerce concessions.
No -- the Trump team’s work must be understood for what it is: an effort to enshrine as American policy the positions on the conflict held by Israel’s settlement movement and its nationalist right-wing.
With election campaigns in high gear in both countries, it’s clear why both Trump and Netanyahu are interested in releasing a proposal that plays to their core political bases.
It's also clear why they would choose to schedule a high-profile meeting on the plan on the very day one leader is standing trial before the US Senate and the other faces a parliamentary debate over his request for immunity from prosecution.
What a great distraction this White House event will provide for both leaders.
Understanding the politics of the moment, the settlement movement and its allies are trying to seize this unique opportunity to shift the goal posts far to the right in the conversation about the conflict and its resolution.
Though the proposal to be released has no chance of achieving peace or resolving the conflict, its publication -- possibly in the next few days -- will serve their cause forever as a significant milestone.
Such moments have shaped the discourse and framed the conversation regarding this conflict for nearly a century: from the 1937 Peel Commission and 1947 UN partition plans through Security Council resolutions such as 242 and 338 -- and even American interventions such as the release of the Clinton parameters in December 2000.
Sadly, this milestone will only mark a setback in legitimate efforts to achieve peace.
We can’t predict with certainty the impacts of the proposal’s release. Will it lead to an end to Palestinian security cooperation or even to a collapse of the Palestinian Authority?
Will it lead to a break in the Jordanian-Israel relationship after nearly three decades of peace? Will these developments snowball toward violence and further bloodshed? Will Israel face even more trouble from international organizations and more pressure from international boycotts?
One way or another, future American administrations and international diplomats trying to help resolve the conflict will always have to deal with this moment's legacy.
Those who care deeply about the state of Israel and its future should also recognize the danger inherent in this moment of triumph for the Israeli right. They intend -- with the acquiescence of a far too mild opposition -- to leverage the Trump proposal and its certain rejection by the Palestinians to realize their dream of unchallenged sovereignty between the river and the sea.
If they are successful in implementing their vision, it would mean the permanent subjugation of the Palestinians. Israel would lose any pretense of being the "only democracy in the Middle East" and would instead face international consequences for overseeing a system of different legal statuses and rights for people based on ethnicity.
This is no peace plan. It is a peace sham -- and its acceptance by Israel will lead only to deeper conflict, loss of democracy and ultimately international shame.
We'll be in touch in the coming days with updates and suggestions for how you can push back against the #PeaceSham. Please follow us closely on Twitter and Facebook for real-time news and analysis.
- Jeremy Ben-Ami
