IN JERUSALEM'S OLD CITY, prices are seldom posted. Negotiating is not only welcomed but necessary. It is customary for the merchant to initially ask for a price far in excess of what both parties know to be reasonable. When such an offer is made, it is perfectly valid for the customer to reject the offer; only then does the real negotiation begin. But if the merchant’s counteroffers get progressively higher, it is perfectly justifiable for the customer to question whether the vendor is genuinely interested in selling.
For the past 30 years, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has often resembled a dysfunctional bazaar transaction. With each round of negotiations, Palestinians have been asked to pay a higher and higher price. The Trump administration plan released in June, called “Peace to Prosperity,” is no exception. But why are its terms so unacceptable to Palestinians?
Palestinian political leadership has consistently expressed its aim to establish a sovereign state in which the Palestinian people can exercise national self-determination. As Israeli-Palestinian peace talks over the past quarter century have demonstrated, the issues of borders, Israeli settlements, and Jerusalem are all negotiable to some extent, but any plan that requires Palestinians to relinquish the fundamental aim of national sovereignty is setting the price too high.
Two of the Trump administration’s key architects for the plan, Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, have hinted at their opposition to anything more than limited Palestinian autonomy. Both have given evasive answers as to whether they think the two-state solution—a projected independent state of Palestine alongside the independent state of Israel—still serves as the blueprint for a peace deal. Greenblatt called the two-state solution “a phrase [that] leads to nothing.” Kushner stressed that “new and different ways to reach peace must be tried,” along with doubts about Palestinians’ ability to self-govern. He also said that freedom from Israeli military and government interference was a “high bar” for a peace plan to achieve.
Considering such comments, the Trump administration plan seems to confirm Palestinians’ worst fears. While the plan’s terms appear generous—$50 billion of foreign investment in infrastructure, private-sector growth, and social services over 10 years—it does nothing to further Palestinian self-determination.
By calling for the construction of “special access roads” in the West Bank and upgrading border crossings with the latest technology, the infrastructure plan anticipates the need to connect scattered territories under Palestinian administration, rather than a unified Palestinian state. The master fund, which will finance the various development projects, will disburse monies according to Palestinian ability to meet development benchmarks set by international investors. In short, “Peace for Prosperity” may offer Palestinians higher standards of living, but at the cost of substantive input into how their own economic resources are developed or utilized.
While the plan’s weakness is apparent from a Palestinian perspective, how should Christian peacemakers respond? After almost a century of conflict, shouldn’t Christians support any attempt to end the bloodshed, no matter how imperfect?
The problem with this approach is that peace isn’t only about political leaders from two nations signing a document. For peace to be lasting, the terms must convince both sides that the fundamental injustices at the root of a conflict have been satisfactorily rectified.
Israelis are clear that only a secure, internationally recognized Jewish state will constitute a just resolution. Most Christians accept and sympathize with this view. Palestinians also insist that only the establishment of a Palestinian sovereign state will rectify past injustices. Christians need to recognize that a Palestinian state is just as necessary for lasting peace as a secure Israel.
The prophet Jeremiah derided false priests who proclaimed “‘peace, peace,’ when there is no peace” (8:11). Regardless of how enticing the terms may look on paper, there can be no true peace while injustices endure. However, insisting on a peace that offers “good news to the poor” and “freedom to the prisoners” and sets the oppressed free is a biblically sound negotiating position.
Mae Elise Cannon is ordained in Word and Sacrament in the Evangelical Covenant Church. She serves as executive director of Churches for Middle East Peace and is the author of several books, including A Land Full of God: Christian Perspectives on the Holy Land.
Andrew Wickersham is an Ambassador Warren Clark Fellow of Churches for Middle East Peace.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!
