| المستخلص: |
The report approaches main US plans and initiatives regarding the Arab – Israeli conflict since 1967 until 2020. It then draws a comparison between what has been stated in these initiatives about the main cases of conflict and between what has been mentioned in President Donald Trump’s plan “Deal of the Century” that has been declared in the 28th of January, 2020. The report reviews the following; William Rogers’ initiative 1969 – 1980 (The Rogers Plan also known as Deep Strike), and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1977, Camp David Accords in 1978, President Ronald Reagan initiative in 1982, The Madrid Peace Conference letter of Invitation in 1991, Camp David negotiations in 2000, The Road Map in 2003, Annapolis Conference in 2007, John Kerry’s two-state plan for peace in the Middle East in 2016, and Donald Trump’s Plan / “Deal of the Century” in 2020. The US presentation of solutions for the main cases of conflict has never been the same nor constant all the time. Take the case of refugees, for example, the first initiatives were stating “Refugees are to choose between going back to Israel or to be settled with indemnities presented to them”. On the other hand, further initiatives have presented the refugees “indemnities” only and tried to have them settled in their present whereabouts, or allowed limited numbers of them to go back to the assumed “Palestinian State”. As for Jerusalem, US propounds has passed three different stages; first of which was considering it Israel’s united capital, followed by the solution of sovereignty partition in Jerusalem by which it acts as a capital of two states. Lastly, US suggestions brought back in the “Deal of the Century” the idea of Jerusalem being the united capital of Israel. Moving to the case of settlement, most of US initiatives has dealt with it by neglect or by asking it to be stopped temporarily. Then came the “Deal of the Century” to consider it to be legal and embodied in Israel’s suggested map for a final solution. When talking about the Palestinian State and its borders, US suggestions have moved from talking about “Interim Self Governing Authority” which is regarded to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in some initiatives, to propounding “two-state solution” with the precept of “territorial exchange”, ending with the idea of external sovereignty diffused “state” and a state of diminished internal sovereignty, divided, disarmed, and deprived from the authority of passages and skies which is all mentioned in the “Deal of the Century”. The report has come into an end that what have been propounded in the “Deal of the Century” conflicts with most of the past US suggestions. That is apart from it conflicting with historical facts, Palestinian people’s legal rights, and international law and resolutions.
|
