President Trump is making a statement with his Israel-Palestine settlement deal: he’s not interested in a productive solution, and he isn’t that interested in democracy.  A comedy sketch by the Israeli TV comedy Eretz Nehederet described the situation: “For years [Israel] tried making peace with the Palestinians, but only [Trump] thought of this genius move: making peace without Palestinians.”

The international community has struggled since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war to solve the competing Israeli and Palestinian claims to land and sovereignty, hoping to establish both as coexisting states, but to no avail.  It is a complex issue with a long history of violence, but the most progress has been made when both parties communicate and compromise.  

Into this process, insert Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” plan for the creation of a Palestinian State which would grant Israel more portions of the West Bank than previous peace settlements including the productive regions of the Jordan Valley, and give control of Jerusalem, a holy place for both Judaism and Islam, completely to Israel.  Unsurprisingly, this plan was written by Israel and the United States, without the input of the Palestinian National Authority or the Palestinian people.

To be fair, the Palestine National Authority is itself a flawed institution.  But it isn’t just the PNA that is rejecting Trump’s plan. According to a poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, 94% of Palestinians oppose Trump’s Plan as well.  While there’s no perfect way to ensure everyone’s voice is heard, the Trump administration needs to put in much more effort to hear civilian concerns before proposing a plan to alter those same civilians’ lives.

The U.S. has claimed to promote democracy around the globe, but American policies towards Israel and Palestine seem to be only the result of close ties between the Netanyahu administration and the Trump administration.  The United States and Israel have recognized that at least much of the West Bank deserves its own statehood and sovereignty, but when it comes to determining the terms by which that statehood is granted, they don’t show enough interest in the opinions of people inside the West Bank.

The Trump Peace Plan is also biased to the point where it is unproductive.  American presidents have a history of proposing multilateral responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict, and a number of former presidents made their own attempts.  But Trump’s response shifts the balance in the negotiations against the Palestinians to the extent that their administration has refused to even come to the negotiation table.

I struggle to see any benefits of the Trump Peace Plan: while not an expert on the Israel-Palestine conflict, it seems pretty obvious that in order to solve any conflict, you can’t alienate one side completely.  “Peace to Prosperity” isn’t productive, it only deepens the communication rift between Israel and Palestine. It also signals that the United States is taking a definitive stance: it is no longer a neutral mediator.  By not involving Palestine in the drafting of a peace plan, the Trump administration has shown that it does not care about Palestinian opinions, and as a result, trust in the United States among Palestinian civilians is dwindling.

The Israel-Palestine conflict is complex, and both sides have legitimate concerns and grievances.  But a peace plan that is only drafted and signed by one side will not promote communication, only division.