In a widely reported, though ostensibly off the record, conversation with congressional interns last week, President Trump’s point man for Middle East peace, Jared Kushner, made headlines with his comment about the prospects for his mission. And a very revealing one it was.
He said,
Not a whole lot has been accomplished over the last 40 or 50 years.… What do we offer that’s unique? I don’t know…. I’m sure everyone that’s tried this has been unique in some ways, but again we’re trying to follow very logically…. We’re thinking about what the right end-state is. And we’re trying to work with the parties very quietly to see if there’s a solution…. There may be no solution, but it’s one of the problem sets that the president asked us to focus on, so we’re going to focus on it and try to come to the right conclusion in the near future.
Ever since Mr. Trump spoke several months ago about not being wedded to a “two state solution” and would support any solution Israel and the Palestinians agreed to, his thinking about how to move things forward has largely been a mystery. Indeed, Mr. Kushner’s remarks doubtless indicate that no solid plan has yet been arrived at.
And while that may be discouraging to some, from where we sit the fact that the administration has not reflexively accepted its predecessor’s working premise that Israel must make all concessions necessary to bring about a viable Palestinian state – and resume minutiae-driven negotiations over this or that concession – is a positive sign.
On the other hand, we are concerned that the Kushner remarks do not signal a recognition as yet that the old policy of according the Palestinians negotiating parity with Israel, despite their having no real cards to play, only served to encourage Palestinian recalcitrance.
How could it be otherwise? Plainly the only issue on the negotiating table was how much Israeli-controlled land Israel would relinquish to the Palestinians who controlled nothing and therefore had nothing to surrender. Why would the Palestinians not believe that the U.S. would forever pressure Israel to meet escalating Palestinians demands?
To be sure, the Palestinians claim their very acceptance of a Jewish state on any part of Mandatory Palestine represents a significant concession in itself. But Mr. Trump’s longstanding support of Israel surely means he does not question Jewish ties to “Palestine” and does not buy into the fictive reality being peddled by the Palestinians concerning their connection. This is, of course, all the more so with Mr. Kushner.
And yet the administration may still believe this is a propitious time for attempting to forge a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. But given that PA President Mahmoud Abbas, now well into the twelfth year of what was supposed to be a four-year term, would be a signatory to any deal, and that Gaza is under the control of Hamas, not Mr. Abbas, how could he sign for the Palestinians in Gaza or bind Hamas to any kind of agreement?
All things considered, perhaps a period of benign neglect with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict wouldn’t be such a bad idea.