Bahrain’s capital Manama hosted the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop that aimed to bring a new framework to present new financial instruments to develop Palestine and Gaza. Despite the stated aim, the workshop received wide criticism from not only Palestinians, but also other Arab countries that considered the meeting as part of a so-called “Deal of the Century.” The agreement was previously proposed by Jared Kushner, Middle East advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump and aimed to resolve the decades-long conflict between Israel and Palestine.

In the opening speech of the workshop, Kushner claimed that the so-called “Deal of the Century” is actually the opportunity of the century that can pave the way for a peaceful Middle East. He stressed that together with Arab partners, the U.S. administration is offering a 50 billion USD aid package for Palestine and its neighbouring countries, in order to help them create jobs, improve infrastructure and develop living conditions. Despite the positive discourse, Kushner’s initiatives received strong reactions. His proposal, which does not offer a state for Palestinians, has been strongly refused by the Arabs who have been living under Israeli occupation for decades. For this reason, the Manama workshop was seen as an attempt to prepare Palestinians for a secret deal that would eventually lead them to lose their centuries-long homeland.

Kushner’s “Deal of the Century” has been strongly refused by the Arabs who have been living under Israeli occupation for decades. 

Therefore, although the economic development of Palestine was presented as the main agenda of the workshop, the most important goal was to garner support from Arab leaders for Kushner’s “Middle East Peace Plan.” The participants of the meeting is a clear indicator as to how the U.S. administration is forcing Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to support Washington’s plans towards the Israel-Palestine conflict. The Manama summit is also supposed to serve to strengthen this alliance led by the Trump Administration.

In addition to the host Bahrain, a number of other Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Qatar, Morocco, and Egypt participated in the summit, while Iraq and Lebanon opposed the meeting. Algeria, Libya, Somalia, Oman and Kuwait did not clearly state their position on the meeting, but they were reluctant to providing public support.

The “Peace to Prosperity” Workshop led by the U.S. in Bahrain was an attempt to prepare Palestinians for a secret deal. 

It was also noticed that Palestine and Israel – countries that would be directly affected by the meeting – did not participate on an official level. While the Palestinian side declared its reaction to both the Manama meeting and the Deal of the Century, Israeli representatives did not participate as Tel-Aviv does not have diplomatic relations with Manama. However, many Israeli businessmen and journalists as well as Jewish religious figures from the U.S. and Canada attended the meeting.

Some of these rabbis organized a religious ceremony in a synagogue in Bahrain, which was also attended by Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s Special Envoy for the Middle East. The images of that ceremony were widely shared on social media, where Greenblatt and rabbis were seen singing “The People of Israel Live” covered with the symbols of the Jewish faith.

One of the highlights of the workshop is the low profile participation from Arab countries. This situation shows the concerns of these countries and the fear that they may cause domestic backlash. As a matter of fact, protests were organized in some countries including Morocco, Lebanon and Jordan, due to the policies of their governments towards the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Protesters also criticized Washington’s Middle East policies and the recent summit held in Manama, Bahrain.

There was low profile participation from many Arab states to the workshop held by Kushner in Bahrain as these states feared that their stance may cause domestic backlash. 

Public figures, opinion leaders and politicians also reacted to the Bahrain meeting. Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party in Lebanon, criticized the stance of the Arab countries towards the Palestine issue and considered the Bahrain summit as a step in the process of Arab countries selling Palestine to Israel and the United States.

Observers also notice the special attention of Bahraini organizers to host Israeli participants, particularly from business and media circles. Even though Bahrain and Israel does not have diplomatic relations, a number of Israeli businessmen and journalists were invited to a meeting, probably for the first time over half a century. In his first interview of its kind to an Israeli newspaper, Bahrain’s foreign minister Sheikh Khaled al-Khalifa stated that his country supports Israel’s right to defend itself from threats in the region and that there can be official relations between the two countries in the coming period.

Although the real motivation of the “Peace to Prosperity” workshop was presented to be a solution for the Palestine-Israel conflict, its main purpose was to prepare a political venue by which Israel’s occupation policies can be institutionalized. Despite the heavy pressure from the U.S. government, the participation of Arab countries at the Bahrain summit was limited due to the possible backlash Arab states could receive from their domestic polity. Another reason was the lack of official representatives from both Israel and Palestine, the two countries that would be directly affected by the meeting. On the other hand, this Bahrain meeting, rejected by leading Muslim-majority states such as Turkey and Iran, is a continuation of the U.S.’ unilateral efforts to impose its agenda for the Middle East. For this reason, both the Bahrain meeting and the deal of the century will continue to be seen as an illegitimate initiative not only for the Palestinians but for the entire Islamic world.

The role of the U.S. in the Palestine-Israel issue has been debated for a long time. Until 2017, the U.S. has shown care in following a balanced policy at least on a discourse level between the parties. But, no matter whether the U.S president was a democrat or republican, a chief priority for the U.S. in designing its Middle East policies was to ensure Israel’s security whereas any remark regarding Palestinians was avoided, which has been evaluated as a relatively partial attitude.

Since the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has always intervened in the developments concerning Israel. The role of Washington in motivating particularly the Arabs during both Arab-Israeli wars and the peace agreements Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan after the wars cannot be denied. Besides, the U.S. has precluded decisions made against Israel in the United Nations (UN) and other international platforms but it also has respected the principle decisions of the UN regarding the Israel-Palestine issue. The country has also been attentive to the coherence between UN decisions and official statements of the U.S. Department of State and White House.

In contrast to the conventional U.S. policy regarding the Israel-Palestine issue, Trump gave signals of his pro-Israel stance from the first days of his presidency.

It must also be noted that the Oslo Accords that created the present status quo in the Israel-Palestine issue were also carried into effect with the efforts of the U.S. But the atmosphere of convergence between the parties thanks to the agreements was disturbed after the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who signed the Oslo Accords, as a result of rising conservative tendencies in Israel. Several attempts by different parties remained inconclusive. Eventually, with Donald Trump’s inauguration as the U.S. President on 20 January, 2017, the U.S. has ended its somehow balanced policies on the Israel-Palestine issue. In contrast to conventional U.S. policies, Trump gave signals of his pro-Israel stance from the first days of his presidency.  

Trump’s pro-Israel policy

Before his election as the U.S. president, Trump opened a campaign office in the Jewish settlement of Karnei Shomron located nearby Nablus governorate in the West Bank and donated to the organizations in the settlement by saying that the Jewish settlers would not impede a possible peace. But at that time, the UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which was taken since the U.S. did not use its veto power, ruled that all kinds of Jewish settlements are forbidden and the existing ones are required to be evacuated urgently in reference to previous decisions. Despite the ruling, Trump did not find it risky to disregard international law. As one of the most highlighted promises of Trump was to solve the Israel-Palestine issue, he took his first steps in this regard as soon as he came to office.

The appointment of Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman by Donald Trump shows that left the so-called peace process to the hands of solely pro-Israel figures.

Trump firstly appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner as his senior advisor and assigned him to solve the Israel-Palestine issue. He also appointed his former chief legal officer Jason Greenblatt as a negotiator. Lastly, he assigned David Friedman, a conservative Jewish, as the U.S. ambassador to Israel, thus handing the so-called peace process to a team solely of pro-Israel figures. Even Israel was surprised by the appointment of Friedman as ambassador since it was thought that a person who has organic ties with the Jewish settlements would not be an ambassador as a requirement of the conventional U.S. policy. Naturally, Palestine does not expect this team to treat both sides equally and to offer a fair formula for peace. However, the developments over the past two years went far beyond this expectation and came to the point of annihilating the Palestinian administration and people.

The most important development in this context is undoubtedly Trump’s Jerusalem announcement. The U.S. recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel with a law enacted in 1995, but all the presidents coming to office as of that date delayed its enforcement on the grounds of security concerns until Trump. Similarly, Trump continued his predecessors’ policy of signing a six-month waiver overriding the law when he came to power but added the note that he would review the situation. After the end of the six-month period, Trump did not sign another waiver and announced that the U.S. officially recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Then, the proceedings to transfer the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were completed on 14 May, 2018, within a short span of time contrary to the estimations.

The opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem with a ceremony on 14 May, 2018, resembled a religious ritual rather than a formal ceremony.

Following a quick restoration, the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem was opened as the U.S. Embassy with a ceremony on 14 May, 2018, that resembled a religious ritual rather than a formal ceremony. Meanwhile, around 60 Palestinian civilians who gathered at the Israel-Gaza border to protest were killed by Israeli soldiers who fired into the crowd. The U.S. held Hamas accountable for the fatalities by arguing that the Israeli soldiers used their right of self-defense as Hamas sent civilians to the region, which clearly displayed the stance of the U.S. So, despite all the UN decisions in force, warnings issued by the countries in the region, and the calls of the EU and other international organizations for common sense; the U.S. ignored the current status of East Jerusalem, which is Palestinian territory, and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  

Imbued with the narrative of the Israeli administration, Washington firstly limited and then stopped all economic and social aid to the Palestinian administration on the pretext that the funds were paid to families of individuals imprisoned for or killed while allegedly committing attacks against Israel. Subsequently, the U.S. stopped providing aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), which provides basic health, education, relief and social services to around 5 million Palestinian refugees in camps located in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria alongside Gaza and occupied Palestinian territory. This move cut off another life vein of Palestinian people. 

To restrict the political representation of Palestinians, the U.S. shut down the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, annulled the U.S. Embassy in East Jerusalem and forced the proceedings here to be conducted by the U.S. Embassy in West Jerusalem. Imposing sanctions on the international organizations and institutions including Palestine as a member, the U.S. administration left the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the UN Refugee Agency (UNHRC) on the grounds that they engage in anti-Israel behaviors. In addition, it imposed sanctions on the judges of the International Criminal Court that conducted ex-officio investigations on the Gaza flotilla raid in 2010, violations during the 2014 Gaza attack, the restrictions regarding Al-Aqsa Mosque, the extortion of Palestinian lands and properties, and the disproportionate use of force by the Israeli military against those joining the Great March of Return. All these steps demonstrate that the U.S. has been going any length to back Israel.

Despite all the UN decisions in force, warnings by regional governments, and the calls of the EU & international organizations for common sense, the U.S. ignored the current status of East Jerusalem, which is Palestinian territory.

As a consequence of all these incidents, the U.S. administration has lost its role as a mediator and turned into a biased actor that only prioritizes Israel’s interests and disregards international law and practices along with its own values to that end. Although he claims that his prior missions include solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, Trump seemingly wishes to design the region in line with Israel’s demands by using force when necessary rather than offering a fair solution to the issue. This is proven by the information leaked about the so-called “deal of the century”, which is trying to be completed by engaging in consultations only with Israel and several Arab states in the region without including Palestine in the process. 

The myth of peace between Israel and Palestine

Israel Hayom, a daily newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson who is known for his close ties with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, published a news report attributed to unnamed authorities from Israel’s foreign ministry. The report included a text that was alleged to comprise several articles of the so-called peace accord. Although this content is not accepted as an official document, it is thought that Trump and his team intentionally leaked the text. Since Kushner, who managed the process until that time, had previously stated that the plan would be announced after the month of Ramadan, it is believed that the published content might be relevant due to its timing and some revisions might be made according to the responses.

The news report read that the agreement consists of ten articles. According to the first article, the agreement will enter into force upon its ratification by Israel, PLO and Hamas. The document read that a Palestinian state called “New Palestine” will be established in West Bank and Gaza, with the exception of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The new Palestine will not be allowed to create an army. The only weapons it will be allowed to possess will be light weapons for the police. The Israeli army will take on the defense of Palestine and Palestine will pay Israel in return. Hamas will deposit all its weapons and receive salaries. Jerusalem will not be divided or shared between Israel and New Palestine and will be the capital of both Israel and New Palestine. The parties will not be allowed to buy property from each other. The Israeli Jerusalem municipality will be responsible for all areas of the city except for education, which will be dealt with by the new Palestinian government. Taxes will be collected from Palestinians to pay for the services provided by the municipality. The present status of the holy sites will continue. Democratic elections will be held in Palestine within one year. One year after the elections and establishment of the government, Palestinians held in Israeli prisons will be released gradually over the course of three years.

The U.S.’ longstanding pro-Israel stance has turned into a gradually intensifying oppression mechanism over the past two years, which has stalemated Palestine in economic and social terms.

For Palestinians’ freedom of travel, a seaport and airport will be established in New Palestine within five years. Until then, Palestinians will use airports and seaports in Israel. These areas will be under Israeli control for security concerns. The Jewish settlements in the Area C of the West Bank, which constitutes around 65 percent of the West Bank, will remain the same and new roads will be built in certain spots to connect these settlements. In addition to the lands in Gaza, Egypt will lease new land to Palestine for use other than residence. The leasing price will be determined subsequently. A highway connecting the West Bank and Gaza Strip will be established. China will pay 50% of its cost, while South Korea, Australia, Canada, the U.S. and the EU will each pay 10%. The Jordan Valley will remain under Israeli control. The road in this area will be widened to connect Palestine and Jordan. The border between Palestine and Jordan will be under Palestinian control.

The U.S. will pay 20% of the cost for all these infrastructure and development projects and the EU 10%, while Gulf states will fund 70% as they are the most direct beneficiaries of the deal.

The last part regarding the stages of implementation reads that if Hamas or the PLO refuses to sign the deal, the U.S. will cancel all financial support to the Palestinians, and if the PLO signs the deal but Hamas or Islamic Jihad refuses, the leaders of these two movements will be considered responsible. In a new war between Israel and the Gaza Strip, the U.S. will back Israel in targeting these leaders. It also adds that If Israel refuses to sign the deal, the U.S. will cease all financial support.

As can be seen, the deal that has been shaped by the U.S administration protects the present gains of Israel while failing to meet the demands of Palestinians on the subjects such as the 1967 borders, the status of Jerusalem, Jewish settlements and return rights of Palestinian refugees stated in the UN resolutions. Since Israel has developed closer ties with the Sunni Arab states in the region with the support of the U.S. within the recent period, the possibility of these countries supporting Palestine has been ruled out. Contrarily, they started pressing on Palestinians to make them accept the above-mentioned deal. These states try to dodge the issue by paying the amounts stated in the deal instead of paying regard to the rights and demands of Palestinian people.

The U.S.’ longstanding pro-Israel stance has turned into a gradually intensifying oppression mechanism over the past two years, which has stalemated Palestine in economic and social terms. Although accepting the deal seems like the only viable way to survive for the Palestinians, this so-called peace deal, which does not offer any noteworthy gain to Palestine despite all concessions, is likely to turn into a subjugation agreement that might cause the complete annihilation of Palestine.

While Middle East politics has experienced one of the most chaotic periods in recent years, Israel stands out as the relatively comfortable actor during this process. This situation is clearly seen in Tel-Aviv’s policies toward various issues in the Middle East. The Israeli administration has managed to benefit from region-wide instability and confrontations between regional powers – Tel-Aviv even encouraged such rivalries. It can be argued that Israel has a more advantageous position than ever regarding issues such as Palestine, the Eastern Mediterranean, confronting the Iranian threat and relations with Gulf countries.  

There are a number of reasons behind this situation. First of all, the regional transformation that has been taking place since the start of the Arab revolutions of 2011 has created an uncertain political atmosphere in the region. Israel has considered this uncertainty as an opportunity to expand its sphere of influence. By utilizing various tools, Tel-Aviv achieved to turn the regional political atmosphere to its favour. In an environment where regional actors have been struggling to maintain their national interests and regime security, Israel follows a strategy to increase its influence without any concern that other regional actors have.

Due to regional instability after the Arab revolutions, Israel started to be considered as a stable and strong ally for some Arab leaders, particularly those of the Gulf Kingdoms. While Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain developed strong ties with Israel, Oman hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Apart from post-Arab revolutions instability in the Middle East, there are two other motivations for Gulf countries to develop alliances with Israel: the increasing threat perception of Iran and the rising influence of Turkey in the region.

By utilizing various tools, Israel has achieved to turn the uncertainty and regional transformation in the Middle East to its own favor. 

The 2013 military coup in Egypt and the emergence of a regime that does not pose a threat to Israel’s security can also be seen as an important factor that opened the way for Tel-Aviv to seek for much bigger ambitions in Middle East politics. For Israel, eliminating the possibility of a threat from Egypt is the most crucial element for Tel-Aviv’s foreign policy making process. Therefore, by securing its relations with Egypt, Israel was able to follow a more aggressive policy towards the region.

In addition to the above-mentioned reasons, the most important dynamic that allowed Israel to expand its influence in the Middle East is the election of Donald Trump to the presidency in the United States. Since Trump’s election in early 2017, Washington’s support for Israel has increased dramatically. The Trump administration fully supported Israel’s occupation policies and ignored many of Tel-Aviv’s steps in this regard. On many occasions, Trump emphasized that his government would defend the interests of Israel at any cost. Trump’s discourse was into put into practice through various policy choices.

In December 2017, Trump announced that the United States recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. While many U.S. presidents brought this issue onto their agenda, none of them made such a decision. Following this announcement by Trump, the U.S. administration moved its embassy in Israel from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in May 2018. Finally, in March 2019, during the Israeli operations in Gaza, U.S. President Donald Trump made comments to support Tel-Aviv by saying that Israel was 100% right and could take all necessary measures to protect its citizens.

“Deal of the Century” envisages a solution that prioritizes Israel’s position on Palestine, delivers historic Palestinian territories to Israel and gives Palestinians statehood without sovereignty.

Another example of such support was on the disputed Golan Heights issue. On March 21, 2019, Donald Trump announced that the U.S. recognizes Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights, which is regarded as Syrian territory by international law, has been under illegal occupation of Israel for 52 years. With this decision, the United States aimed to support Tel-Aviv’s position on an international level and contribute to the efforts to solve the conflict in favour of Israel.

Finally, with Trump’s rise to power, Israel accelerated its efforts to institutionalize its occupation policies in Palestine. In this context, Trump’s son-in-law and his advisor, Jared Kushner, worked on a plan named as the so-called “Deal of the Century,” to resolve the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The plan, which is expected to be announced in the coming months, envisages a solution that prioritizes Israel’s position on Palestine, delivers historic Palestinian territories to Israel and gives Palestinians statehood without sovereignty. As the discussion continues on the Deal of the Century, Palestinians are determined to stick to their historical lands and claims.

As an indicator of new political alliances, the Deal of the Century is supported by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Despite the support of various regimes, the agreement will not receive support from the Arab people. Therefore, the signing of such an agreement and efforts to implement it will create further chaos in an already instable political environment in the region. Whether the agreement will be implemented or not, Israel’s influence in the Middle East will continue to increase given the instability in the region, rivalries among regional powers and the emergence of an alliance between Israel and three major Arab powers, namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.