Map Of Trump’s Peace Plan For Israel & Palestine aka Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People

The map above shows what Trump’s failed peace plan for Israel & Palestine called the Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People would have looked like.

From the map:

Name: Vision for Peace a Conceptual Map

ISRAEL

• Israeli Enclave Communities
  1. Hermesh
  2. Mevo Dotan
  3. Elon More
  4. Tel Hayyim (Itamar)
  5. Berakha
  6. Yizhar
  7. ‘Ateret
  8. Ma‘ale Amos
  9. Asfar
  10. Karme Zur
  11. Telem
  12. Adorah
  13. Negohot
  14. Bet Haggai
  15. ‘Otni’el

List not all inclusive.

Key:

• Israeli access road
• A future State of Palestine
• Port access
• Palestinian major road
• Bridge or tunnel
• Strategic site

Notes:

1. Status quo over Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif is preserved.
2. Jerusalem will remain undivided west of the security barrier.
3. There will be no evacuation of any community, Israeli or Palestinian.
4. Implementation of the Conceptual Map is subject to the terms and conditions provided in the Vision for Peace.

Geographical Markers:

• West Bank-Gaza Tunnel
• Damya Bridge
• Allenby Bridge

Border Disclaimer: Boundary representation is not necessarily authoritative.

About the plan:

The Trump peace plan, announced on January 28, 2020, was a controversial initiative by the Trump administration to address the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Both Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu called it the “deal of the century.”

Crafted by a team led by Jared Kushner, the plan aimed to establish peace and prosperity in the region but faced widespread criticism for its perceived bias towards Israel and its ambitious, some say unrealistic, demands of Palestinians.

Key Components of the Plan:

1. Two-Part Structure:
   • Economic Portion: Released in June 2019, it outlined a $50 billion investment fund aimed at boosting Palestinian and regional economies through infrastructure, education, and job creation. This included developing modern financial institutions, connecting Gaza and the West Bank with a travel corridor, and improving healthcare and education systems. The economic plan depended heavily on investments from Arab states and private investors.
   • Political Portion: Released in January 2020, this addressed the territorial and governance aspects of the conflict.
2. Territorial Changes and Sovereignty:
   • The plan proposed giving Palestinians control over 70% of the West Bank but rejected a return to the 1967 borders. Instead, it proposed land swaps, allowing Israel to annex key settlements in the West Bank and retain the Jordan Valley, a move Palestinians and many international actors opposed.
   • A future Palestinian state would consist of disconnected enclaves linked by roads and tunnels, a configuration that critics likened to fragmented “Bantustans.”
3. Jerusalem:
   • The plan recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital, a position that has been a source of contention for Palestinians, who seek East Jerusalem as the capital of a future state.
   • Palestinians were offered a capital in peripheral neighborhoods outside Jerusalem proper, such as Abu Dis, which critics described as isolated, impoverished areas with no connection to the city’s cultural or historical significance.
4. Conditions for Palestinian Statehood:
   • The establishment of a Palestinian state was contingent upon Palestinians meeting stringent criteria, including:
     • Total demilitarization.
     • Recognizing Israel as a Jewish state.
     • Halting payments to families of Palestinian prisoners convicted of terrorism.
     • Reforming governance to eliminate corruption, ensure transparency, and establish an independent judiciary.
   • Israel and the U.S. retained the authority to determine whether Palestinians had met these conditions.
5. Refugee and Settlement Issues:
   • Palestinian refugees were denied the right of return to Israel. Instead, they could resettle in a future Palestinian state, third countries, or remain where they currently reside, subject to host country approval.
   • Israeli settlements in the West Bank were legitimized, allowing Israel to annex them. Settler communities within Palestinian-designated areas were to remain under Israeli jurisdiction.

Reception and Reactions:

1. Palestinian Response:
   • The Palestinian leadership rejected the plan outright, calling it a non-starter and accusing it of being a tool to legitimize Israeli annexation of Palestinian land.
   • President Mahmoud Abbas labeled it the “slap of the century,” while Hamas dismissed it as an effort to liquidate the Palestinian national project.
2. Israeli Perspective:
   • Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised the plan, highlighting its support for Israeli claims over key territories and its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
   • However, some Israeli settlers expressed dissatisfaction with the plan, fearing it could lead to the recognition of a Palestinian state, which they opposed.
3. International Reaction:
   • The Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation rejected the plan, reaffirming their support for a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital.
   • European nations expressed concern over annexation plans, warning of violations of international law and the impact on prospects for peace.
   • The United Nations criticized the plan for contravening established international principles, including resolutions affirming Palestinian self-determination and the illegality of Israeli settlements.
4. U.S. Domestic Reactions:
   • Congressional Democrats criticized the plan as heavily biased toward Israel and dismissed its prospects for success. Some leading Democrats described it as a “smokescreen” for Israeli annexation.
   • Republicans and pro-Israel groups largely supported the plan, viewing it as a pragmatic approach to the conflict.

Implementation and Stalemates:

During the plan’s unveiling, Netanyahu announced plans for the immediate annexation of the Jordan Valley and West Bank settlements. However, the U.S. later clarified that annexation should be postponed pending discussions with a joint U.S.-Israeli committee. The timeline for annexation became uncertain due to conflicting signals from the U.S. and internal Israeli political considerations.

Palestinians boycotted engagement with the U.S. after the administration moved its embassy to Jerusalem in 2017, cut aid to Palestinian institutions, and closed the Palestinian diplomatic office in Washington, D.C.

Criticism and Legacy:

The Trump peace plan faced criticism from many quarters. Key concerns included:

• Its departure from international norms and two-state solution parameters established in UN resolutions.
• The perception that it prioritized Israeli security and territorial claims while offering Palestinians a fragmented and conditional state with limited sovereignty.
• The economic plan’s feasibility, given the ongoing blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank.

Supporters argued the plan broke with decades of unsuccessful peace efforts and presented a realistic framework for resolving the conflict. They emphasized its potential to enhance Palestinian economic prospects if the conditions were met.

In practice, the plan did not gain traction.

Annexation plans were paused, and no significant progress toward implementing the political or economic portions was made. The plan’s unveiling coincided with political crises in both the U.S. and Israel, including Trump’s impeachment trial and Netanyahu’s legal battles.

What do you think of the plan?