The New U.S. Peace Plan Won’t Result in a Signing Ceremony on the White House Lawn. But That Doesn’t Mean It Will Fail

Feb. 14 2020

Since the White House released its proposal for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict, numerous critics have stepped forward to argue that it will never work. While Michael Doran agrees with them “completely,” he also believes their position is “nonsensical, because it assumes they know that there is a solution out there” that will work. He discusses his concerns in depth with Jon Lerner, who, during his tenure in the Trump administration in 2017 and 2018, was involved in discussions leading up to the proposal. In Lerner’s understanding, its crafters didn’t intend to dictate terms to the parties; nor did they expect the outcome to be a “signing ceremony on the White House lawn.” Rather they wished to reshape the conflict to the benefit of both Israeli and Palestinians, and to create a more realistic framework for future negotiations. (Video, 67 minutes.)

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Read more at Hudson Institute

More about: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Peace Process, Trump Peace Plan, U.S. Foreign policy

Israeli Sovereignty Would Free Residents of the West Bank from Ottoman Law

To its opponents, the change in the legal status of certain areas of Judea and Samaria is “annexation;” to its proponents, it is the “extension of sovereignty” or the “application of Israeli law.” Naomi Khan argues that the last term best captures the practical implications of the measures in question. Since the Six-Day War, the Jewish state has continued to uphold the Ottoman legal system in areas of the West Bank under its jurisdiction—despite the fact that the Ottoman empire ceased to exist in 1922; “annexation” would end this situation. Setting aside the usual questions of foreign policy, security, and the possibility of Palestinian statehood, Khan argues that this change would be the one most felt by those who live there:

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Create a free account to continue reading

Welcome to Mosaic

Create a free account to continue reading and you'll get two months of unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Register

Read more at JNS

More about: Annexation, Israeli law, Ottoman Empire, Palestinian Authority, West Bank