Tag Archives: President Trump

Analyzing Trump’s Middle East Peace

Chronicling latest attempt to untie Gordian knot of the ongoing conflict.

{Published previously by The Jerusalem Post}

Israel’s normalization of relations with Arab Gulf countries occurring before a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, previously presumed a prerequisite by the international community, now opens the door to new possibilities and a fresh approach to resolving the conflict, unencumbered by a Palestinian Authority veto.

As Aaron David Miller, a long-standing Middle East peace negotiator under many American presidents, said, the peace treaties “upended American thinking about the centrality of the Israel-Palestinian dispute long considered to be the core of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict.” The newly developing Arab relations with the Jewish state may now mean that President Donald Trump’s peace proposal, so disparaged by the international community, which failed to anticipate the possibility of such an Arab-Israeli rapprochement, may now deserve a new look. It offered a comprehensive plan and map that prioritized Israel’s security issues along with a contiguous Palestinian state on 70% of the land, albeit with bridges and tunnels. The proposal could form the basis for future negotiations if the PA prioritizes the economic advancement of its people over its desire to end the Jewish state.

Neville Teller’s new book is the first comprehensive examination of the Trump peace plan from its beginning in 2016 to its unveiling in January 2020, “set against the backdrop of a turbulent Middle East.” Any book that focuses on Trump will elicit a strong reaction even before the reader opens the first page. Teller bravely enters the lion’s den, chronicling the first three-plus years of the Trump administration’s attempt to untie the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Whether you think Trump is the most pro-Israel American ever, as the majority of Israeli Jews do, or you think his stopping Palestinian funding and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal are bad for America and Israel, as many progressive Americans do, his imprint on the region will reverberate for many years. Whether his peace plan will be seen as groundbreaking or irrelevant is not known.

During the tumultuous Trump years, there were so many policy decisions, some good, such as the US Embassy move to Jerusalem and some bad, such as his abandoning the Syrian Kurds. Therefore, reviewing his years in depth as Teller does is an important exercise in attempting to understand where the region may be headed, as the effects of his policies will echo well into the next administration.

What is fascinating in reading Teller’s excellent review of the region and the development of the Trump plan is how much we have already forgotten or perhaps never knew even occurred in the region since 2016. For that alone the book is worth reading. Teller presents a chronological history progressing toward the ultimate “Deal of the Century” while offering a historical record that will also be appreciated by serious students of the conflict.

WHAT THE Trump team realized and acted upon, but the preceding administrations refused to see, was the reality that the PA was incapable of signing an end of conflict agreement, including putting an end to the right of return for descendants of Palestinian refugees. So the thesis of the Trump team was to first turn to normalization between Israel and the Arab world to provide a cover for the Palestinian negotiators. The international community condemned the Trump plan because it did not follow their two-state formula, which had failed so many times before.

The book was written before Israel and the UAE and Bahrain normalized relations, but the signposts that the region was changing began when Trump moved the American embassy to Jerusalem and the Middle East didn’t implode. The Arab world barely reacted and the Palestinians didn’t launch another intifada.

As Teller writes, Trump wanted to be the one to solve the conflict by using his business experience as a guide, saying, “Deals are made when parties come together, they come to a table and they negotiate.” Trump’s strategy required an Arab buy-in, which is why his team spent the first few years repeatedly visiting the Gulf states, Egypt and Jordan to lay the groundwork for the current normalization agreements and potential new relationships with Israel in the future. But the elephant in the room that motivated the Arab Muslim world to move on past the Palestinians was the shared common interest in thwarting Iran’s quest for hegemony and dominance in the region.

Teller presents the peace process evolution against the backdrop of the Syrian civil war, Iran’s malign influence in the region, and Saudi and Gulf state antagonism to Qatar, while incorporating all the players including Turkey, the PA and Hamas. He describes Trump’s approach to the Middle East as having “one firm objective – to confront Islamist extremism in the Middle East, and not wholly for its own sake, but as one vital element in a determined effort to broker an Arab-Israeli understanding leading to an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.” Interestingly, Teller says the Trump team “deliberately set no time limit on their enterprise, convinced that painstakingly slow consolidation of each small step along the way was the key to bringing their enterprise to a successful conclusion,” and understood correctly that the 1949 armistice line was not sacrosanct as a border, much less a defensible security line for Israel.

Neville Teller’s Trump and the Holy Land: 2016-2020 is a worthwhile read for anyone who cares about the Middle East, America and the US-Israel relationship. 

The writer is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and senior editor for security at the Jerusalem Report/Jerusalem Post.

What does pro-Israel mean in the age of Trump?

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Post}

The term “pro-Israel” has become has become a lightning rod, due in part to President Donald Trump’s many self-described pro-Israel statements and actions, and the scorn many people have for just about anything he says or does.

Writing in Haaretz, Jonathan Tobin said, “Democrats and never-Trump former Republicans argue that even if you support the president’s policies, they are bad for Israel… the association with Trump is tarnishing the Jewish state… [yet] if Democrats are increasingly divided on Israel, this is a trend that long predates Trump and was largely weaponized by Barack Obama’s feud” with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the Iran nuclear deal.

Eight years ago, when asked what it meant to be pro-Israel, David Shipler, the former New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief, said, “It seems obvious to say that being pro-Israel means supporting Israel’s survival, security and well-being as a just and prosperous society. Nobody would disagree.”

Is that definition of being pro-Israel obvious to most Jewish Americans today?

Twenty-five years ago, pro-Israel was clearly understood to mean that you supported Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, respecting the democratically elected government as the will of its people who put their children and themselves in harm’s way every day. Fifty years earlier, six million Jews were slaughtered, with Israel being the refuge of the tiny remnant that survived, along with 750,000 Jews ethnically cleansed from Arab lands. Israel’s six million was to be protected and defended by the Jewish Diaspora so a second Holocaust could never occur again.

That never meant that Israel was always right, but to be pro-Israel you believed Israel was right more than wrong, and certainly more moral than its neighbors, which imported European style antisemitism on top of their own anti-Jewish animus. That – combined with misogyny, authoritarianism and a profound lack of human rights – made Israel the clear choice for American sympathy across the political spectrum.

With the election of Barack Obama to the presidency and his stated goal to put “daylight” between America and Israel, the definition of what it meant to be pro-Israel was put under stress, as most American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Mr. Obama, as they have consistently voted for the Democratic Party in every election cycle. 

At the same time a new organization came on the scene that supported a more much critical attitude to Israel that was adopted by the new administration, hoping to re-define what it means to be pro-Israel. The primary focus of J Street changed the positive shared values and security-based “special relationship” to highlighting Israel’s occupation of the disputed territories, calling for punishing consequences for Israel’s intransigence.

This resonated with many young Jewish adults who were immersed in college campuses where intersectionality is the prevailing wind, Israel being the victimizer and the Palestinians being the innocent lamb. Although J Street and its college subsidiaries claimed they were in favor of a Jewish and democratic state and against the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, it still provided forums for those who believe in BDS as the best method to pressure Israel to change its ways. 

WITH THIS, the foundation of what it meant to be pro-Israel for young as well as older Jews began to crumble.

This culminated in the Obama administration’s orchestration of the passage of UNSC Resolution 2334 that labeled any Israeli presence in West Bank (Judea and Samaria) a violation of international law. Being pro-Israel now meant that if you believe Israel has legal rights over the 1967 line, you are a supporter of an international crime against humanity. To Israel’s critics, everything about Israel is defined through the lens of its occupation of the disputed territories.

Enter Donald Trump, and the “pro-Israel” moniker became even more politicized, if that were possible, by challenging Jewish Democrats’ loyalty to the Jewish state. This occurred contemporaneously with the rise of the Democratic congresswomen who routinely crossed the line into anti-Zionism and antisemitism without incurring any consequences.

Trump’s “pro-Israel” support of Israel’s annexation of the Golan, extension of sovereignty to 30% of the West Bank, withdrawing support to the Palestinian Authority for supporting terrorists, have all been condemned by J Street as wrong and counter-productive. The organization’s advocacy, primarily in support of the Palestinian position, seems to have been re-invented into what it claims is an authentic 2020 pro-Israel position.

So what should define pro-Israel in 2020 across the political spectrum?

Here are a few suggestions.

  1. Being able to say the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people.
  2. That the state of Israel is entitled to exist as a Jewish and democratic state without qualifiers.
  3. Respecting, even if not agreeing, with the outcomes of Israel’s elections
  4. Not supporting boycotts, divestment or sanctions in any form.
  5. Not allying with anti-Israel organizations that question Israel’s right to exist.
  6. If you are pro-peace but advocate in favor of the Palestinian narrative that Jews are not indigenous, the creation of the state is illegitimate, you cannot spin that as being pro-Israel.
  7. If you advocate for a binational state you are not pro-Israel.
  8. You are pro-Israel if you demand any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict include an “end of conflict agreement” that all claims are forever ended, including the Palestinian right of return.

This list is certainly open to debate, but the hope is that it can create a dialogue into what pro-Israel should mean in 2020 and beyond. Just because you are Jewish does not automatically give you higher standing or the claim that anything you advocate is pro-Israel.

Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden prevails in the November election, the eventual winner’s positions and actions over the next four years will challenge the very definition of what “pro-Israel” means. The ever-expanding and contracting tent of who is within or outside the pro-Israel tent will challenge Jewish Americans and their supporters in Congress for the foreseeable future.

The writer is director of MEPIN (Middle East Political Information Network). He regularly briefs members of Congress and their foreign policy aides, as well White House advisers. He is the senior security editor for The Jerusalem Report/Jerusalem Post, and has written in The Hill, JNS, JTA, RealClearWorld, The Forward, i24, Israel Hayom and Defense News.

Nixon goes to China, Trump spends trillions to save America

As the economic consequences of closing down the American, Israeli and world economies grow exponentially each day, with the potential for a worldwide depression lurking just around the corner, now may be the time to “see the forest through the trees,” acknowledging that the unprecedented economic remedies to save the world economy may not have been possible if the American leadership in 2020 were in the hands of a different person. This is not a political endorsement, but the lessons we learn today have echoes of the past. 

“Only Nixon could go to China” is a well-worn metaphor to explain how someone with a lifelong reputation for being a die-hard anti-communist could have gone to Communist China in 1972, opening relations with the world’s most populous nation that changed the course of the late 20th and early 21st century, and whose consequences we are still dealing with today. Israel had its Nixon in China moment in 1978 when the hawkish prime minister Menachem Begin made peace with Egypt and relinquished Israel’s territorial depth.

America in the spring of 2020 is having a “Trump Goes to China” moment that should be recognized for its importance, as it could not have occurred with so little congressional debate if the exact same actions taken by Trump and his secretary of the Treasury were those of a president of the Left. The planned enormous government expenditures designed to provide stability to the nation dwarf the most grandiose ideas FDR had during the Depression; the long-term consequences of this for the United States and the world are completely up in the air. A populist president from the Right who ran on shrinking the American government has, with so little difficulty, been able to implement this unprecedented burst of government expenditure. 

Now imagine if Hillary Clinton had won the election and tried to implement the exact same things that Trump and his economic team have accomplished in conjunction with Congress, as literally trillions of dollars were being printed and handed out to desperate Americans and corporations, all the while fighting with a Republican Senate, hoping to get such actions through Congress. Perhaps the circumstances are so scary that it would have all passed Congress as easily as for Trump, or maybe not.

For those who viscerally hate Trump or are “Never Trumpers,” they must realize that no matter how inarticulate the president is, or how many times he backtracks on impulsive statements, Donald Trump may ironically have been the right choice to have gotten this economic package passed so quickly.

THIS WILL not last. The hyperpolarization will return, and the president and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are already at it. There is much political rancor ahead, with the presidential election just over six months away.

But more importantly, America and the world have will have to decide when to slowly reopen the world’s economy to avoid a depression, and it is a certainty that no matter what Trump does, even if it would have been the exact same decision Clinton would have made, there will be media and political opponents accusing him of killing Americans, sacrificing lives for money.

In the US, commentators like Don Lemon of CNN are already trying to undermine the president’s message, arguing that his news station should not cover Trump’s daily press conferences.

There is plenty of time for politics and hatred down the road.  What we need now is to begin to plan an exit strategy to avoid a Depression.

We need:

1. to ramp up widespread testing for antibody immunity to assess herd immunity;

2. large-scale studies to determine how prevalent the virus is in the general public;

3. everyone wearing faceguards, as tens of millions are asymptomatic and could be spreading the virus;

4. to keep seniors and the immunocompromised indoors for another 3 months; and

5. to keep social distancing for another three months.

Our goal is to continue to decrease the rate of transmission of the virus so as not to overwhelm the healthcare systems. Upwards of 200 million people will be infected in the US, and millions in Israel. We can plausibly control whether those numbers occur over two months or over one year. Lives and our economies are hanging in the balance.

Nixon went to China, and Trump’s economic plan would make a socialist proud. Could Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas decide to become an Anwar Sadat? Crazy things are happening.

The writer is the director of MEPIN (Middle East Political Information Network), the senior editor for security at The Jerusalem Report, a columnist for The Jerusalem Post, and a writer for The Hill. 

Trump Has Changed the Landscape of the Middle East

Love him or hate him, President Donald Trump has defied conventional wisdom in the Middle East, and yet the Sun still rises every day. Trump has shattered the long-standing myths of the Middle East that allowed the Palestinians to veto every proposal for the last 100 years. They remain the only “stateless” people who have rejected multiple offers of a state.

From the Soleimani assassination to the embassy move, to the recognition of the Golan and Jordan River Valley as Israeli security imperatives, to stopping American financial support of the Palestinian Authority which rewards terrorism in its “pay for slay” terrorism scheme, the Washington pundits and the mainstream media haven’t offered a single mea culpa for how wrong they have been so far in projecting dire consequences of these policy initiatives. They predicted catastrophe, and while violence will raise its ugly head in the unstable Middle East, the outcomes have not matched their predictions.

Naysayers who claim that the deal is unrealistic, too pro-Israel, and undermines Palestinian aspirations, totally miss the point of the importance of the Trump peace plan, whether or not its particulars are realized.


The initial support of Arab nations for the plan as a basis for negotiations is groundbreaking. Even Qatar, a refuge for the Muslim Brotherhood, didn’t reject the deal outright.

The comments of the two most important Sunni nations, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are encouraging. According to the Saudi Foreign Ministry, “In light of the announcement, the kingdom reiterates its support for all efforts aimed at reaching a just and comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian cause.”

According to the Federalist website, the “Egyptian Ministry of Foreign Affairs applaud[ed] the US contribution ‘to the stability and security of the Middle East, ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.’”

Oman, Bahrain and the UAE even went so far in their support as to send delegates to the White House ceremony where Trump unveiled the plan with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his side.

The Trump plan offers a map that shows exactly how the US administration envisions Israel’s final boundaries. This marks the first time any American Mideast plan has come with a map which pre-tackles some of the thorniest issues – including Jerusalem. And yet many of these Arab states did not immediately reject it or condemn it. On the contrary, their initial reaction was to urge the Palestinians to negotiate.

With the exception of Egypt, these Arab states do not officially recognize the State of Israel. Their first reaction was to support the plan which is tacit acceptance of the Jewish homeland.

It came as no surprise that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas expressed strong opposition and that the Arab League placated the outraged Abbas by seemingly back-peddling and officially rejecting the Trump plan. But it’s the first reaction that is more telling, and this move by the Arab League simply pays lip service to the Palestinians.


It’s an obligatory nod to those on the Arab street that may still support the cause. The theatrics will continue at the United Nations later next week when the United States will veto the perfunctory anti-Israel resolution.

BUT THE CRACKS are showing, and with time the Sunni Gulf states – which are fast losing patience with their Palestinian Arab brethren – will choose what is in their best interest to counter Iran. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

As expected, the king of Jordan, whose stability teeters on the edge of a cliff, needed to be critical of the plan to continue to survive. Privately he is ecstatic that the Jordan River Valley will be in Israeli hands, and that a Palestinian state won’t be on his border. No surprise that the anti-American, anti-Israel president of Turkey was against the deal.

The plan not only states the obvious – that Israel must control the Jordan River Valley, especially in light of Iranian expansionism – but furthermore that Israel must have military control of a Palestinian state, the lesson learned from the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza, where the ceded territory became the terrorist enclave of Hamas. A Palestinian state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) cannot be allowed to become a base for Iranian terrorism.

The pundits didn’t see the “Arab Winter” coming, and they didn’t foresee the possibility that Arab nations would not automatically take the Palestinian position on the Trump plan. Arab nations want to do business with Israel for their own self-interests, and need Israel as the most important regional ally against their most feared enemy, Iran. They are sick of Palestinian rejectionism, and know that resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not what’s going to save them from Iran’s plans to overrun and control the region.

The onus to make peace is now on the Palestinians, whereas in the past peace deal attempts Israel was always the one pressured to concede more, in the vain hope the Palestinians would reciprocate.

Supporters of the Palestinians such as J Street, now appear much more pro-Palestinian than the Arab states, as they had nothing positive to say about the obvious essential Israeli security needs that were addressed by the Trump peace plan. While adhering to the Palestinian narrative, they continue to ignore decades of Palestinian rejectionism and statements of the illegitimacy of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, best expressed in their #PeaceSham campaign. They support and encourage the Palestinian counteroffer of “a thousand nos”.

If carefully handled, the administration’s out-of-the-box thinking may bear fruit in new opportunities that didn’t exist just a couple of years ago between Israel and Sunni Muslim States. Although the Middle East is still incredibly complex and problematic, and America cannot control the millennia-long tribal and religious hatreds, US and Israeli national security interests could be advanced in ways unimaginable until today. If this plan becomes a basis for negotiation, or more likely, the Palestinians reject the plan, they make themselves more irrelevant to their Sunni Arab brethren.

Too bad the Europeans with the exception of Boris Johnson of the UK are still delusional and allow the Palestinians Authority tail to wag the European Union dog, as they have now become the chief enabler of the corrupt Palestinian Authority to the enduring detriment of the Palestinian people.

Dr. Eric R. Mandel is the director of MEPIN, the Middle East Political Information Network, and the senior editor for security for the Jerusalem Report. Michelle Makori is the lead anchor and editor-in-chief at i24News in New York. She has worked as an anchor, reporter and producer for Bloomberg, CNN Money, CGTN, and SABC.

Will Trump’s Iran Sanctions be Weaker than Obama’s?

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Post}

The intelligence community’s rationale for allowing Iran to remain part of SWIFT is that it allows them to track Iran’s finances internationally.

Last spring President Trump withdrew from the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). He re-imposed sanctions on the revolutionary Islamist regime that had previously been given tens of billions of dollars in economic relief and was reintegrated within the international banking community. The sanctions come into full effect on November 4.

President Trump has been unwavering in his criticism of the JCPOA, claiming the deal didn’t deliver any of its promised benefits – moderating Iran’s expansionist ambitions, restraining its missile development or terrorist sponsorship, improving its human rights record – while it continued threatening American allies in the region.

But is it possible that members of the president’s own administration could convince him to soften the impact of the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran? Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

Much has to do with an internal fight within the administration between the intelligence community and Treasury on one side, and National Security Adviser John Bolton on the other.

The Treasury and the intelligence community are advocating for leniency on Iran and its European partners by allowing Iran to remain a part of the SWIFT international banking system, which allows Iranian banks to seamlessly exchange funds across the globe.

That the international community would even allow the world’s leading state sponsor of terror to be accepted in good standing in the world economic community is another story – one of naiveté, avarice and appeasement.

Bolstering Bolton on the other side are Trump’s years-long statements about imposing maximum economic pressure on Iran to create conditions for a better deal. Sixteen senators this summer warned Treasury about the dangers of excluding SWIFT sanctions.

Which brings us back to whether President Trump will re-impose a softer version of Obama-era sanctions on Iran by not incorporating SWIFT.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, “During the Obama era, SWIFT disconnected Iran due to sanctions threats… SWIFT leaders were in DC last week holding meetings with Trump administration officials to ensure that Iran retains access to the international banking system,” strengthening the Iranian economy and their European trading partners.

The intelligence community’s rationale for allowing Iran to remain part of SWIFT is that it allows them to track Iran’s finances internationally, providing vital intelligence, and if SWIFT is sanctioned it would weaken their ability to follow other bad international actors like Russian oligarchs.

This is not a strong argument, as Iran’s most egregious transactions will not enter the transparent SWIFT system. Iran and Hezbollah fuel the American opioid epidemic with a billion dollars a year of money-laundered profits that are outside the SWIFT system. In addition, as long as SWIFT only blocks transactions with Iran, the intelligence agencies can continue to monitor all other worldwide transactions.

WITH IRAN’S economy already reeling, some critics of re-imposing SWIFT sanctions fear Iran could become more dangerous and unpredictable, with claims that it could impede the flow of oil, gas and commerce in both Bab-el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Red Sea and Persian Gulf, respectively.

Iranian-supported Yemeni Houthis have already attacked two Saudi tankers this year in Bab-el-Mandeb. However, China’s dependence on Iranian oil transported through the Strait of Hormuz, combined with Iran’s desire to strengthen relations with China, make that threat less likely.

But the most challenging threat against imposing SWIFT sanctions is from President Trump’s own Treasury Department under Steve Mnuchin, which is working overtime to help Iran remain in SWIFT. Mr. Mnuchin’s perspective is shaped by his Wall Street background, which sees any interference in global trading systems as a threat to the worldwide economic order, especially with the Europeans not on board this time around. They argue that Iran’s economy is already in tatters and that SWIFT sanctions would cause more harm than good.

The reality is that if Iran is allowed to remain in SWIFT, the much-promised maximum economic sanctions of the Trump presidency will be a hollow threat. If the goal is to further starve the Iranian economy – making its support of worldwide terrorism, hidden nuclear activities, human rights abuses, and missile development more painful to continue – then the benefit of including SWIFT outweighs the arguments against including SWIFT transactions.

According to Josh Rogin in The Washington Post, “There’s another great argument for cutting Iranian banks off SWIFT: It would hamper Iran’s ability to finance the Assad regime in Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas… SWIFT’s own bylaws require it to prevent illegal financial activities – such as funding terrorism.”

Before the Iran agreement was implemented there was bipartisan consensus on imposing sanctions on Iran for its clandestine nuclear program.
However, after the agreement went into effect in 2016, any new sanctions on Iran were treated as a direct threat to president Obama’s legacy achievement, despite the administration’s promise that all non-nuclear sanctions were on the table. The issue has unfortunately become a political one, not what it should be, a discussion of what is in America’s best interest.

This month America unveiled its first new counter-terrorism report in seven years. Tops on the list was the Iranian threat. America’s national security interest is to rein in Iran. Without including SWIFT, that interest is undermined.
As President Trump’s Iran envoy Brian Hook said, “If talking to Iran kindly worked, we wouldn’t be in this position… we need to restore deterrence.”

The writer is the director of the Middle East Political Information Network (MEPIN) and regularly briefs members of the Senate and House and their foreign policy advisers. 

Can Trump’s Peace Plan Avoid the Pitfalls of Previously Failed Negotiations? 

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Post}

Has the Kushner/Greenblatt peace initiative learned from the mistakes of previous negotiation efforts?

The long-awaited Trump peace plan to end the Israeli Palestinian conflict is finally ready for its unveiling in June, coincident with the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

American presidents for generations have been grasping for the elusive gold ring of a final solution to the conflict.

Whether out of a misguided belief that all the problems of the Middle East revolve around the conflict, or a sincere desire to solve one of the world’s most intractable conflicts, American efforts more times than not have worsened the situation.

The failures have not lacked for effort, especially on the part of Bill Clinton and his inexhaustible determination at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately, that failure laid the groundwork for the Second Intifada – the profound unintended consequence of which was to convince many Israelis who really believed in the possibilities of peace offered by the Oslo agreement that Israel will never have a Palestinian partner it can trust.

Has the Kushner/Greenblatt peace initiative learned from the mistakes of previous negotiation efforts? Can they offer a different course, perhaps incorporating the fleeting window of opportunity offered by the new confluence of interests between America, Israel and the Sunni Gulf states, to move the negotiations forward? Here are some of the conventionally accepted wisdoms for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that should be avoided: 1. Believing this conflict is primarily territorial. If it were, the conflict would have been resolved as recently as 2007, when Israel offered 100% of the territory with land swaps and east Jerusalem as their capital, but was dismissed by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

2. Believing the conflict is the key to unlocking the other problems of the Middle East. Even if Israel did not exist today, almost all of the Middle East’s problems from the 1400-year-old Sunni- Shi’ite divide to the quest for Iranian hegemony would still be raging.

3. Believing you can make peace without effectively addressing generations of fervent Arab incitement in their media and classrooms that says Israel has no legitimate right to exist in any territorial dimension, with no Jewish historical association to the land.

4. Believing America cannot be a fair intermediary unless it is a neutral negotiator. America can make the effort to be balanced in mediation, but the reality is that Israel is an indispensable security interest, and consistently since its inception, an ally of the United States.

5. Believing the Palestinians subscribe to the Western nation-state model, where in reality Palestinians identify themselves by clan and tribe.

6. Believing financial incentives are the primary lever to influence the Palestinians. It is certainly true in any final peace deal, billions of dollars may be paid the descendants of Palestinian refugees as compensation for not demanding a return to Israel proper, and none to the greater number of Jews who, at the same time, became refugees from Arab lands. But the ingrained Palestinian narrative to this day demands an unconditional return. Although ordinary Palestinians are one of the most subsidized people in the world, the Palestinian leadership’s primary grievance, the existence of Israel, will not be addressed simply by monetary compensation.

7. Believing this is the last opportunity to end the conflict. It is not.

President Abbas is in very poor health and anything he signs will be suspect the minute he passes on.

That is why any new peace initiative must include an “end-of-conflict agreement” as the agreed goal of all parties. Israel cannot be asked to make territorial concessions endangering its security, without knowing the result is to be such an agreement. If the Palestinians are unable give up all further claims, which is what an “end-of-conflict” agreement is, then Israel should only be asked to make modest concessions for a stable long-term ceasefire.

It is not in America’s interest to pressure Israel to give up large portions of territory, if the Palestinians are only, as in the past, looking to use this as a step to eventually conquer all of Israel.

This is something American negotiators – from Nixon/Rogers, to Bush/ Baker, to Clinton/Ross, to Bush/Rice, to Obama/Kerry – never understood and appreciated.

ANY SUCCESSFUL initiative will need to answer the following questions in order to achieve a true end-of-conflict agreement.

1. Can Israel accept a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem?

2. Can the Palestinians accept Israel’s minimal demands for a demilitarized state, no right-of-return, Israeli control of Jordan River Valley and control of airspace.

3. Does Israel have the will to remove tens of thousands of its citizens from the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) who live beyond the major settlement blocs and Jerusalem? 4. Has the peace plan been drafted to prescribe how to deal with contingencies that would set the treaty on fire? For instance, suppose there is a Hamas coup in the West Bank endangering not only Israel but also the existence of Jordan. The unspoken secret is that the Jordanian Hashemite monarchy is fearful of the creation of any Palestinian state next door that might empower its Palestinian majority population and destabilize the state, a vital American ally.

You will know that peace has taken root when the Palestinians stop preaching their current defining narrative, which is the nakba (“the catastrophe”), the negation of the Jewish people and Israeli state, and begin celebrating the anniversary of their independence, accepting living in peace next to the Jewish state.

The writer is director of MEPIN™, the Middle East Political and Information Network™. Dr. Mandel regularly briefs members of Congress on the Middle East.

He is a contributor to ‘The Jerusalem Post,’ ‘The Hill,’ and ‘The Forward.’

What’s Next After the Trump Middle East Trip?      

{Previously published in The Jerusalem Post}

Anyone who demands Israel accept an imposed peace plan must recognize the fragility of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments.

American perception is not reality in the Middle East.

A friend of mine keeps telling me that the “cold peace” with Jordan and Egypt is the model and proof that Israel can achieve a sustainable peace with the Palestinians; even if the enemy still believes you have no legitimate right to exist.

He says the benefits to Israel will accrue if Israel is territorially generous, even if the Palestinians teach their children that Israelis are interlopers and infidels who have no rights to any part of the land.

Idealists like my friend are unfazed by critiques that point out that to contemporary Muslims, any land once controlled by Islam, the land of Wakf, can never rightfully belong to non-Muslims.

Can conservative and Wahhabi Sunni states courted by US President Donald Trump accept a Jewish state? According to Prof. Ephraim Inbar, founding director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, “the [Palestinian Authority] cannot conclude a ‘cold peace’ like Egypt or Jordan. Those two countries take their commitment seriously to prevent terrorism from their territory…

“In the West Bank, the PA… encourages terror by subsidies to jailed terrorists and by innumerable steps to eulogize the martyrs.”

Idealistic dovish organizations claim that the majority of Palestinians want a two-state solution. That is true if that is the only question you poll. They claim that Palestinian Arabs have no desires beyond the “green line.”

Yet those same Palestinians, when polled by Palestinian pollsters, reveal a much more troubling result. To the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, a two-state solution includes the unlimited right of return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, while a return to the ‘67 lines is not considered an acceptable solution. In other words, we are talking about 1948, not 1967, the goal being the effective destruction of Israel.

It is true that the Egyptian peace agreement has held for 40 years, even under trying circumstances, including the assassination of Anwar Sadat, and the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in the aftermath of the Arab Winter.

Many people believe the final resolution of the conflict is clearly known, that it will be along the lines of the Clinton parameters of 2000. The Gulf States just need to be convinced to provide cover for the Palestinians, and if necessary pressure the parties to accept the resolution.

This is the “outside-in strategy.”

But with a $400 billion economic package negotiated with the Saudis, $110b. in military deals, will US National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson tilt toward the Saudi perspective? Remember, the hard-fought 10-year US-Israeli military deal is dwarfed by the Saudi deal, $3.8b. vs. $110b.

When I inquire about the stability of an agreement with an Arab world that venomously hates Jews, not just Israelis, and with Hamas waiting in the wings to take over the West Bank the moment Israel leaves security control to the PA, I’m told it doesn’t matter.

The response is that Israel is so militarily superior that it can retake the West Bank in days with the world’s support if missiles start flying into Ben Gurion Airport from Ramallah.

When confronted with the current chaos in the Arab world, I am told this is not a problem, but an Israeli opportunity, because this is evidence that the Arabs have never been weaker and Israel never stronger.

I am also told that if authoritarian Arab leaders make a deal with Israel, their populace’s Jewish hatred is irrelevant, as they will go along with any agreement.

Memo to my idealistic friends: remember the list of authoritarian dictators overthrown by their citizens during the Arab Winter, who just months earlier were deemed secure by American intelligence.

When I ask my friend about the failed experience of the Israeli withdrawal in Gaza and the likelihood of a Hamas takeover in Judea and Samaria, Abbas’s explanation that the failure of the Gaza withdrawal was Israel’s fault for not coordinating it with the PA is recited.

When challenged with Israel’s international legal rights over the ‘49 armistice line, I am told that even if Israel has those rights, they are irrelevant because the international community and UNSC Resolution 2334 have made them irrelevant.

When confronted with the facts, that UNSC Resolution 2334 is a non-binding resolution and UNSC resolution 242 is still the prevailing document on the conflict confirming the green line artifactual, it does not move them.

The historical record of Sunni Arab animosity to Israel’s existence is discounted as my friend tells me the Gulf States are working with Israel behind the scenes against their common enemy, the Iranians. This is true but it confuses the difference between temporary shared interests and a real desire to end the state of war, which is continually reinforced by their conservative Islamism.

Is a Trump administration able to thread the needle of reconciliation between conservative Gulf States and Israel, where others have failed? An insight into the challenge any American initiative into the conflict will confront is best represented by a recent but illustrative diplomatic incident between Israel and Jordan. Israel’s erstwhile peace partner called Israel’s killing of a Jordanian terrorist in Jerusalem a “heinous crime.”

When your Sunni “friends” escalate instead of downplaying incidents like this, the long-term sustainability of any signed agreement appears doubtful.

Anyone who demands Israel accept an imposed peace plan must recognize the fragility of the Jordanian and Egyptian governments and their limited prospects as partners in peace with their neighbors and even with factions within their own borders.

Is Trump, the ultimate negotiator, willing to walk away from a Saudi proposed deal, if the only available deal turns out to be one that would seriously endanger Israel?

The author is director of MEPIN™, the Middle East Political and Information Network™. He regularly briefs members of Congress and think tanks on the Middle East. He is a regular contributor to The Jerusalem Post.