U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to present his "deal of the century" a few months or even weeks after Israel's Knesset election on April 9, but then again, it might happen before a new coalition government can even be formed. It looks like Israel will very likely be made to pay a high price for the deal, aspects of which will touch on the very core of our existence here – Jerusalem, security and defense, and the settlement enterprise.
Although this assessment, which is based on numerous reports, is accepted by many, there has been absolutely no practical or ideological discussion of the impending "diplomatic typhoon." Instead, the public has been exposed to a single issue: the campaign to present the expected indictment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a left-wing conspiracy. This campaign absolves Netanyahu of any need to provide proof that his positions are in fact right-wing because if he has been set up by the Left, he must necessarily be on the Right.
Thanks to this assumption, Netanyahu has not been challenged at all from the Right – not on his decision to allow the transfer of funds to Hamas in the Gaza Strip; not on his foot-dragging on the demolition of the illegal Bedouin outpost of Khan al-Ahmar in accordance with a ruling by the High Court of Justice; not on the fact that he has barely lifted a finger to regulate outposts in Judea and Samaria despite the strenuous and professional work of the Defense Ministry; and not on the continued construction freeze in strategic areas like Givat Hamatos in Jerusalem or the E1 area that connects Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim.
Don't doubt the leakers
The most deafening silence, though, concerns the Trump peace plan. According to numerous leaks in the media, the plan includes the establishment of a Palestinian state on anywhere from 85% to 90% of Judea and Samaria. Arabs neighborhoods in east Jerusalem will be under the Palestinian Authority's control, including those in the Old City of Jerusalem and surrounding areas. According to these leaks, dozens of outposts will be evicted, construction in dozens of established settlements will be frozen and only the settlement "blocs" will be annexed to the State of Israel. If even half of these reports are true, the ideological Right should be tearing its hair out right now.
The American denials of these reports are mainly characterized by calls to "wait patiently" for the release of the peace plan. Although Trump has said little in the way of substance about the plan, he tends not to stutter. He may not have gone into detail, but as early as January 2018, following a meeting with Netanyahu in Davos, he had made it clear that Israel would "pay" for Washington's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's official capital.
Last August, Trump reiterated that point when he said that in future negotiations with the Palestinians, Israel would need to pay a "higher price" because the U.S. had relocated its embassy to Jerusalem. Addressing the Knesset that same month, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence made it clear that "we're not taking a position on any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem or the resolution of contested borders."
It seems that there is no reason to doubt the leaks, which have been consistent both in terms of what they say and the terms they are setting for the "price" Israel will be required to pay. The fact that the Trump administration has agreed to postpone the release of the plan until after the April 9 election bolsters this assumption even further. The U.S. administration understands that the proposal will not please Israeli voters in general, and Netanyahu's voters in particular.
The principal question that must then be asked is: Have understandings been reached between Netanyahu and the Trump administration regarding the deal of the century? And if so, what are they? The Israeli public, which according to the polls is set to give Netanyahu his fifth term in office, deserves answers. But it won't get these answers if it doesn't ask questions, and there are many questions that need to be asked. All of them concern the various leaks over the past year pertaining to the supposed details of the Trump plan.
Does Netanyahu still adhere to the remarks he made in his speech at Bar-Ilan University, in which he said he supported the establishment of a Palestinian state? Will he agree to Israeli settlements being subject to the authority the PA? Will he agree to the eviction of 70 outposts from Judea and Samaria? Will he agree to the establishment of a Palestinian capital in some of the neighborhoods of east Jerusalem on both sides of the security fence? Will he agree to share responsibility for parts of Jerusalem that are situated deep in the city, such as the Old City and its surrounding, with the PA? Will he agree to a territorial exchange with the PA? Has he already agreed to a freeze in future construction in settlements deep inside Judea and Samaria?
None of these questions have yet to be asked because thanks to the equation set forward by the investigation-focused election campaign, there is no one to pose them to the prime minister. Everyone is focused on the "set up" rather than on "framing" the parameters of Netanyahu's commitment to right-wing positions on core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Breaking away from the persona
The Trump deal will obviously be presented to us as the best deal in town, and the most generous deal that any American president has offered or will ever offer. That may be true when the basis for comparison is the Clinton parameters and the policies of former U.S. President Barack Obama. But the current election campaign hasn't even brought up the "lesser evil" for debate. With the public discourse focused solely on Netanyahu's persona, and not the critical issues just around the corner, the plan and its repercussions are not even on the agenda.
The practical implications for the Trump proposal and the details of it that have been made public thus far are significant and require meaningful discourse. Will it be possible to continue to have Jewish settlements in areas under Palestinian control? Won't the transfer of Arab neighborhoods adjacent to Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem to the PA's control necessarily result in small arms and machine gun fire on Jewish neighborhoods, as was the case when Beit Jala was handed over to the Palestinians and for years, Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood was under gunfire? Also, to what extent will there continue to be freedom of access to the Jewish, Christian and Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem when the access points to those holy places are transferred to Palestinian control? And what will the division of Jerusalem, regardless of what whitewashed terms are used to describe it, do to the sense of normalcy and cooperation that exists between Jews and Arabs in the city, and which the media barely ever focuses on, in fields such as the economy, employment and infrastructure?
An outcry from the Right that would break the corruption investigation's monopoly over our election campaign would not only not harm Netanyahu, it would do him good. It would also serve to soften the Trump proposal and show the Americans just how difficult it will be to force a plan on the Israeli public that harms the integrity of Jerusalem and the settlements in Judea and Samaria.
On the eve of an event set to decide the fate of Jerusalem and the land of Israel, any election campaign that makes no mention of the diplomatic campaign in store is crippled and flawed. Now is the time to ask the right questions and demand answers.
