PROSPECTS FOR THE ‘GREAT DEAL’

Just over a month ago, world media reported that this summer the U.S. Administration intends to convene a summit dedicated to the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This was followed by the statement that the U.S. President's special envoy, Jason Greenblatt, was already holding consultations with Egypt, Jordan, and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf to get their support for the conference.

Apparently, the incumbent U.S. leadership is on par with the previous administrations of the White House trying to demonstrate its own initiative for settling the most protracted conflict in the Middle East. President Trump was not hiding his sympathy for Israel during his campaign, which made the expert community regard him as a promoter of the interests of the Jewish lobby so powerful in the United States. Meanwhile, despite such a lopsided expression of attitude towards the parties of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the American leaders nevertheless are well-aware of the fact that paying occasional lip-service to Israel will not help to sort out the oldest conflict in the Middle East, let alone ensure the security of the Jewish state, Washington's closest ally in this region.

Therefore, President Trump had a telephone conversation with the head of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) Mahmoud Abbas back in early March. Yet in February, CIA Director Mike Pompeo visited the Palestinian Authority. For high-ranking Palestinian representatives, these “high-level contacts” served to “dispel the illusions of Israel”, which claimed that Mahmoud Abbas was not “a partner for peace”.

Mr. Trump revealed his desire to launch a new peace process between Israel and Palestine during the negotiations with the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II, who visited Washington in early April. Jordan and Egypt have a track record of concluding peace agreements with Israel, and therefore it is not surprising that Washington is trying to solve the Palestinian-Israeli problems in dialogue with these Arab countries. Al-Sisi presented Trump a unified position of the Arab countries based on their demand to reach an equitable solution to the Palestinian question through the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. This position requires the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the territories occupied in 1967 (the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights) in exchange for the normalisation of relations between the Jewish state and the Arab world.

In early May, the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas visited Washington. Just before his flight to the U.S., Abbas visited Amman and Cairo, where he held talks with Abdullah II and al-Sisi. These trips give grounds to assume that Mr. Abbas received a “detailed briefing” on the framework of talks with the Trump administration and how the Palestinian leader should behave with the new and occasionally unpredictable American president.

Abbas in the White House

At a joint press conference with Mahmoud Abbas, the U.S. President has officially announced the start of the process, which “hopefully will lead to peace.” By virtue of his bold character, Mr. Trump said: “Over the course of my lifetime, I have always heard that perhaps the toughest deal to make is the deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Let's see if we can prove them wrong”. He expressed confidence that “there was a very good chance of concluding a peace agreement in the Middle East”.

Although at a private meeting with Abbas, President Trump raised concerns about the payments to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails who, according to Tel Aviv and Washington, have committed acts of terror and to their families, he nevertheless added: “I want to support you in being the Palestinian leader who signs his name to the final and most important peace agreement” between Israel and Palestine.

But what is the fundamental condition upon which the peace deal should be reached between the parties of perhaps the most painful international conflict? Donald Trump has not disclosed the details of this subject before the comprehensive study of the existing situation in the Holy Land is complete. As for Abbas, he reaffirmed the main objective of Palestinians - to create “an independent state within the 1967 borders”, which he claims to be the only option to put an end to this long-standing conflict.

“Our strategic choice is to establish peace based on the principle of ‘two states for two peoples’”, reminded Mahmoud Abbas. We assume that this reminder of the “strategic choice” was even more convincing after being expressed by the main rival of Abbas’s Fatah movement, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. This radical movement has issued a political document, which does not contain traditional calls to eliminate Israel. It was regarded by many as sensational acceptance of the “two states principle” by Hamas.

Hamas is changing?

At the elections held in early May, Ismail Haniyeh was elected the head of the Palestinian Hamas movement succeeding Khaled Mashal, who did not go for re-election. It is difficult to judge how much this change of the leadership influenced the ideological transformation of the movement. However, it is clear that Hamas has stepped into a new phase of activities. The main novelty is Hamas’s consent to recognise the borders of Palestine defined back in 1967. It is noteworthy that this change in Hamas’s position on borders occurs exactly 50 years after the Judgment Day War between Israel and Syria, Egypt and Jordan, which turned into a defeat of the Arab countries.

Hamas has also changed views on a set of other fundamental issues. According to the Hamas Charter adopted in 1988, the movement refused to join the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) on the grounds that the latter supported the idea of ​​secularism of the Palestinian state while Hamas stood for the establishment of an Islamic republic in Palestine. The new program however expresses the readiness of Hamas to join the PLO with a reservation that the latter will return to the “democratic principles” of governance (an obvious hint that the PLO has been monopolistically ruled by Fatah party leaders since 1967).

Another important point in the new Hamas program is the lack of a provision in the 1988 Charter that the movement is the Palestinian wing of the international Islamist organisation Muslim Brotherhood. The reason for this stance of non-participation should be sought in the actual international isolation of Hamas in the face of serious turmoil experienced by the Arab world. The movement has lost the support of the Egyptian President al-Sisi after he overthrown the former head of state, Mohammed Mursi, a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood, and declared war on this Islamist structure. The Syrian President Bashar Assad also became a foe to Hamas, as the radical Palestinian movement sided with anti-government forces in the bloody Syrian conflict that has been going on for six years (because of the defeat of Hamas in Syria, Khaled Mashal had to flee Damascus to Qatar's capital Doha). Due to Hamas support of the jihadists fighting in Syria, one of the closest allies of the Syrian leadership, Iran, has also refused to support the Palestinian radicals. Previously, Tehran would have heavily supported Hamas financially. Jordan and the UAE have outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and considerably cooled their relationship with Hamas.

Contrary to expectations, Mahmoud Abbas has prevented the weakening of his own positions in both Palestine and the international arena. Therefore, Hamas have opted for ending its disassociation with the PLO, as well as its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.

As for the absence of the clause regarding the destruction of Israel in the new program, it explicitly demonstrates Hamas’s desire to strengthen its political positions and to get back the points lost in the international arena. Thus, Mr. Trump’s statement about the impossibility of establishing a lasting peace “until the Palestinian leaders act as a united front” sounds quite symbolic. It seems that Hamas has adopted the appeal of the American leader as an opportunity to join the negotiation process on equal footing. But it is too early to predict how it plays out. In any case, Israel deeply doubts the ability of Hamas to transform ideologically and become a partner to the peace process.

Waiting for the tour

The success of the process of settling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict depends not only on the sincerity of Hamas but also on all other forces potentially involved in the Middle East crisis. This includes the conflicting parties sticking to diametrically opposite positions on a number of issues (the status of Jerusalem, the problem of refugees and so on) and the powerful external players claiming mediation in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement. First of all, it concerns the United States and its new president, who has pledged to achieve a breakthrough in the peace process.

During his meeting with Mahmoud Abbas, Donald Trump, contrary to his counterpart, President Obama, has never mentioned that the solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was possible thanks to the “two states for two peoples” principle, which assumes the creation of an independent Palestinian state. According to the current U.S. administration, although Mr. Trump has not supported the concept of the “two states”, he is not its opponent but only leaves all options open, giving Israelis and Palestinians an equal opportunity to choose their future independently.

Meanwhile, Trump remains silent about the construction of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem. Under Obama administration, the U.S. had criticised any such activities. By the end of his last year as a president, Obama and his team have even been able to force the UN Security Council to pass a resolution demanding the immediate cessation of the construction in the concerned territories. We still do not know what exactly Mr. Trump thinks about the Jewish settlements and the possibility of achieving a “great deal” between Israel and Palestine.

It is expected that the peace initiative of the new U.S. administration will be understood more clearly after the forthcoming first foreign tour of Donald Trump, including the visits to Jerusalem and Riyadh. Unless these visits mainly cover the discussions of military, political, and economic measures to contain Iran, which is becoming increasingly stronger in the Middle East... It seems that not only Israel and the Saudis but also the new American government is interested in these measures trying to disown Obama's nuclear deal with Tehran using all possible means.

In any case, the opposition of the Trump administration to Iran, as well as the initiative on the Palestinian-Israeli settlement certainly promise to become one of the key tools of the United States in building the geopolitical mosaic that meets their interests in the entire region of the Middle East and Asia.