Earlier this year, President Trump unveiled his long anticipated ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan to end the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. This conflict has transpired for decades over land that both populations claim as their own. Securing peace in the Middle East ultimately means securing peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis, which has been an aspiration of many US presidents. Trump’s actions leading up to the reveal of his plan for peace did not inspire confidence: recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, cutting off aid to the Palestinian Authority, cozying up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and subsequently moving the US Embassy there. While none have succeeded before, President Trump calls his plan a “win-win opportunity for both sides.” This claim is hotly contested, with many observers seeing it as unequivocally favouring Israel.

The White House reports that the plan “presents a package of compromises that both sides should consider, in order to move forward and pursue a better future that will benefit both states and others in the region.” However, when comparing Netanyahu’s enthusiastic support of the plan with the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ response of ‘a thousand no’s’, we begin to see that the burden of these compromises lies more heavily on the Palestinians than the Israelis.

Peace to Prosperity is a comprehensive two-state solution comprised of political  and economic frameworks. These frameworks promise self-determination, economic opportunities, growth for the Palestinian people and security for Israel. The BBC reports that, while the map in Trump’s plan ‘more than doubles’ the territory for a Palestinian state, the Palestine Liberation Organization rejects it, as it only represents 15 per cent of ‘historic Palestine.’ Other proposals outlined in the Peace to Prosperity plan  state that: Jerusalem will remain Israel’s undivided capital and no Palestinians or Israelis will be uprooted from their homes. This latter proposal ensures that the Jewish settlements, considered illegal by most of the international community, will remain. 

Public response to the Peace to Prosperity plan has been disproportionately negative. According to Foreign Policy, portraits of Trump and Netanyahu were burned in protest at a Palestinian refugee camp shortly after the plan was revealed, as it essentially ignores the Palestinian negotiations for East Jerusalem to be the state capital. While the Palestinians take issue with almost all aspects of Trump’s ‘deal of a century’, the topic of water resources is especially problematic. Water has fueled many of the conflicts in the region and, as reported by Foreign Policy, the demand in the Peace to Prosperity plan that Palestine relinquish the water-rich West Bank to Israel seems woefully uninformed about the importance of this resource. As the Palestinian population grows and the threats of climate change materialize, the issue of water rights will not be ignored. Ensuring access to safe water for the Palestinians must be a pillar of any viable peace agreement.  

An obvious fault with Peace to Prosperity is the lack of Palestinian involvement in its design. Developing a peace plan for two states while only consulting one of them is a recipe for failure. Thus it is no surprise that the plan was declared ‘dead on arrival.’ Although the plan promises an eventual sovereign state for Palestine, the Palestinian leadership is left out of the negotiations regarding this sovereignty. The future implications of this for the Palestinians are worrying. Israel will move ahead with the deal as the Palestinians face an ultimatum: “accept the Trump parameters or else.” Peace to Prosperity seems to have had the opposite effect and made peace more unlikely. Rather than just being ‘dead on arrival’, it has aggravated the tensions between the two states and given Israel no reason to negotiate further.