Trump’s “Deal of the Century,” or, officially, “A Vision to Improve the Lives of Palestinian and Israeli People” (the Plan) was published during the height of the shameful bluffpeachment, so it flew under the radar in America. Apparently, the ostentatious political correctness of the Plan (the opposition of “Israelis” and “Palestinians,” “two-state solution,” etc.) misled most pundits – and the Plan quickly disappeared from front pages everywhere.
The Deal of the Century was referred to as another futile effort to achieve an ephemeral peace in the Middle East. However, if one puts aside the politically correct newspeak (I understand that this is very difficult, but try), then you immediately realize there is no “Palestinian-Israeli” conflict – simply because the separate “Palestinian nation” does not exist.
The Insoluble Doctrine of Political Correctness
At the same time, if one obeys the doctrine of political correctness and accepts that the “Palestinian nation” exists (for reference, Jews were called Palestinians before the war of 1967; since 1967 only Arabs were called Palestinians, thanks to the filing of the Soviet Politburo), then such a conflict does exist.
In this – politically correct – formulation, the existing conflict is insoluble even theoretically, because two peoples (both real and fictitious) lay claim to the same territory – Western Palestine.
This territory is approximately one-fourth the size of the former Roman province of Palestine (the Romans renamed the province of Judea, inhabited mainly by Jews, into the province of Palestine at the beginning of the 2nd century AD, immediately after the suppression of the Shimon Bar-Kokhba rebellion).
Trump decided to go beyond the limits of this problem (artificially imposed by the USSR) which no longer exists. In fact, in politically incorrect terms, there is not a Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but an Arab-Israeli conflict. Trump’s plan addresses precisely this – real – conflict, and not the “Palestinian-Israeli” conflict, which was invented by Soviet communists and promoted through the multi-year long “active measures” of the KGB.
Thus, the “Palestinian-Israeli conflict” is, by definition, a politically correct political deadlock.
Establishing a Priori
The Trump plan’s revolution is precisely the fact that for the first time in history, the “Palestinians” (this is newspeak – the Palestinian Arabs are meant here) are being taken out of this conflict. Moreover, they are withdrawn not directly, but indirectly. This is done by establishing a priori unacceptable for both terrorist “Palestinian” enclaves (Hamas and the PLO) conditions (such as the cessation of terrorist activities and end of payments of pensions and cash benefits to terrorists and their families, as demanded in Appendix 2B of the Plan).
What will be the fate of “Palestinians?” The Plan does not say anything concrete about this, because architects of the Deal of the Century do not see a political future for them. At the same time, the Plan formally contains a map of the “Palestinian State” (including a tunnel – an analog of the Danzig corridor). The plan also contains the idea of multi-billion-dollar financial injections into terrorist enclaves. Nevertheless, did anyone seriously hope that in the 21st century, a sovereign state would be given as a reward for terrorism? Those who dream of this are several hundred years late.
Mathematical impossibility of the “Palestinian State”
Without going into mathematical details, we note that the Hausdorff dimension of the territory of the “Palestinian State” according to the Plan (page 46) lies in the range from 1 to 2, that is, it very much resembles a fractal. In other words, the Plan provides for this “state” something intermediate between a one-dimensional line and a two-dimensional surface.
From a political point of view, such a state is not viable by definition. The fact is that the physical length of the borders of a fractal is much greater than the length of the border of a circle within the same area, so protecting such a border would require enormous funds – both from the “Palestinian State” and Israel.
As expected, both the PLO and Hamas immediately rejected Trump’s plan. It is also got rejected by leftist American Jews (on similar to PLO and Hamas grounds). But the trick is that this plan was not created to solve the problems of terrorist enclaves, but to solve another, real, and much more serious conflict. Trump’s plan is the road map to the recognition of Israel by most Arab countries. It is on the solution to this problem, more important for Israel and the Arab countries, that the Trump plan is oriented.
By publishing the Deal of the Century, Trump played on the full political predictability of “Palestinians.” In fact, did anyone doubt that they would agree only with a plan that would guarantee the destruction of the Jewish state? So many times, they said a categorical “No” to all previous politically correct peace initiatives, and Trump decided to take advantage of this.
Trump proposed a plan that is politically correct in form and completely politically incorrect in content – and thus a plan that was obviously unacceptable to terrorist enclaves.
A plan that, as a result, puts them outside the brackets of the international political process.
At the same time, Trump’s plan achieves the most important strategic goal – the creation of а de- facto and a de-jure alliance of the United States, Israel, and Arab countries against a single enemy – nuclear Iran.
A United Front Against Iranian Nuclear Threat
Since the revival of modern Israel in 1948, we have witnessed numerous attempts to “establish peace in the Middle East.” This refers to the peace between Israel, the Arab population of Western Palestine, and the Arab population of the entire Middle East. Trump’s plan addresses the issue of peace with Arabs outside of Western Palestine. Furthermore, the problem of peace within Western Palestine is removed from the agenda by the political elimination of two terrorist enclaves as parties to the conflict.
Trump’s main task is by no means helping Palestinian Jews or Palestinian Arabs. Trump’s main task is to build an anti-Iranian coalition.
Answer this question – what would be the fate of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria if Iran’s nuclear threat ceases to hang over the Arab countries? Yes, in the past, Arabs supported and financed the “Palestinian” terror, but that was before Obama forced the creation of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Now the situation has changed, and the only ones who seem to have not understood this yet are the “Palestinians.” Oddly enough, it was Obama’s shameful deal with Iran that played a key role in the fact that “Palestinians” can no longer count on broad international support. Terrorists who receive funding from Iranian sources cannot understand in any way that the presence of such a source is a direct threat not only to Israel but also to its Arab neighbors.
The more Iran gives support to terrorists, the more united will the United States, Israel, and the Arabs become against this source.
The Arabs are primarily concerned about the Iranian bomb, not the connection between the two terrorist enclaves with a tunnel.
We are witnessing an amazing paradox that became possible only with Trump – the Muslims of the Middle East, during the three years of Trump’s presidency, began a 180-degree turn in their position both concerning Israel and their “fellow Palestinians.” Therefore, oddly enough, Trump’s plan, rejected by “Palestinians,” brings the Middle East closer to peace.
The Failed Oslo Accords
The Deal of the Century is a plan to squeeze “Palestinians” out of both the political process and the orbit of terrorism. How realistic are hopes for the de-militarization and de-terrorization of “Palestinian” enclaves? No one has any illusions in this matter. However, the fundamental difference between the Trump plan and all previous attempts is that before, “Palestinians” had never been held accountable for what they had done.
Now they are on the verge of establishing Israel’s sovereignty in the entire space from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Trump’s plan means a point of no return for terrorist enclaves. According to this plan, if after four years, Trump’s demands on “Palestinians” are not fulfilled, the “Palestinian problem” and the sore point “Palestinian state” will be closed forever.
As the saying goes, feel the difference: while the Oslo Accords were based on rewarding “Palestinians” for “good behavior,” Trump’s plan is based on punishing “Palestinians” for “bad behavior.”
Trump’s plan, like the plans of his predecessors, is called a “peace plan.” As is known, “peace” involves a relationship between the two parties in the conflict. Trump’s plan differs from all previous plans without exception in that it reaches peace through the political elimination of one of the parties to this conflict.
For the Arabs of the Middle East, the “Palestinian problem” has long turned into the problem of a used condom. Furthermore, their fate is the same.
Who is standing in the way of the Plan? Avigdor Lieberman. Of course, Lieberman likes the Plan. But the subject of disagreement lies not in the Plan itself, but in who exactly will implement this plan – either Netanyahu (in the role of the Prime minister of the right coalition) or Lieberman (in the role of a senior minister of the left coalition).
On the Road to Normalization
In conclusion, we note an interesting development – the normalization of relations between Sudan and Israel. Sudan has been formally at war with Israel since 1948 but is now moving towards normalizing relations – and this is only a few days after Trump unveiled his Plan. For the first time since WWII, this normalization takes place without any mention of “Palestinians” at all.
Muslim countries have finally begun to understand the true meaning of Trump’s plan, and now the Arab street says: “Our brothers in faith in Israel received some new proposal from the United States. They should decide whether it is good or bad for them; we are going to normalize relations with Israel on our own. The problems of the Muslim population of Israel are internal problems of Israel, not ours.”
Thus, even if Trump’s plan has not yet been formally put into effect, the results are already there – Muslims began to remove the “Palestinian problem” from the agenda. Of course, the New York branch of the Arab League, better known as the United Nations, will continue to exaggerate the theme of “Zionist aggression against Palestine” for some time – but only by inertia, and definitely without previous enthusiasm.
As it always happens in history, momentous events at all times are accompanied to one degree or another by a successful combination of circumstances. Peaceful coexistence in the Middle East certainly requires some luck. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was such luck when a group of high-ranking British conservatives favorably reacted to the idea of the revival of Israel.
Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, luck is also essential – in the form of the re-election of Trump and Netanyahu. The re-election of these two conservatives in 2020, plus the victory of British conservatives over anti-Semitic forces in December 2019, is a guarantee that in a few years, the “Palestinian problem” will become quite disliked.
Let us hope that by the centenary of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine in 2022, financing of terrorist fractals will become politically unprofitable, and the “Palestinian problem” will begin its journey into oblivion. With no fanfare.
[Originally published at New Right Network]