Political possibilities for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have changed on November 5. President-elect Donald Trump promised he would not start new wars, in fact, he promised to end them. The November 27 cease-fire has, for now, ended the war in Lebanon. However, this very fragile agreement is between Israel and the Government of Lebanon, not with Hezbollah.
When Trump is sworn in and sits in the Oval Office, he is likely to find the war in Gaza still on his desk. In January 2020, before leaving the White House, then-President Trump presented his Vision for Peace, his "deal of the century" which received support from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and was rejected by President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. The main reason Netanyahu likely accepted it, other than his desire not to go against Trump, was his certainty that the Palestinians would reject it. On January 20, 2025, when President Trump returns to the White House, it is worthwhile to review his Vision and determine if perhaps there is something worth embracing there.
We should recognize that Trump's Vision is fundamentally the two state solution. However, according to the plan, the Palestinian state isn't much of a state at all, there is no real control over borders, there is no territorial integrity or contiguity, there is no real sovereignty. In short, it is understandable why the Palestinians rejected it.
Nonetheless, the principle of two-states and Palestinian statehood is there and that is a step in the right direction. Anyone who understands the conflict can't imagine a quick transition from the horrors of the current war to implementing the two state solution. There must be a political program with regional and bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that will lead to a defined agreement of two states – Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace. This requires a full cease-fire, stabilization, reconstruction, and new elections (in Palestine and in Israel).
If President-elect Trump is serious about resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he will embrace the two state solution, because there is no other solution possible to this conflict. For any renewed peace process to be acceptable and have a genuine basis for reaching peace, the vision for what the conclusion looks like must already be known from the outset, even if it will potentially take a number of years to reach it. We cannot repeat the open-ended nature of the Oslo process which had no stated end-game and allowed for negotiations to continue endlessly.
The final agreement does not have to be spelled out in detail from the beginning, but the broad strokes of what it is needs to be explicit and the process needs to lead to its completion. In that context, the Trump Vision could be the starting place for renewed negotiations.
The proposed map the Trump Vision provides includes Palestinian control over about 70 percent of the West Bank and all of Gaza. In a revised Trump plan, no Israeli settlement would be removed in this first phase, but no new settlements would be built. This clearly creates a new reality and can essentially begin early on, even before the final borders are determined.
It is essential though, that President Trump make it clear to the Israeli government that annexing any part of the West Bank would not be acceptable and would have dire consequences on U.S.-Israel relations and on the chances for peace. The United States would then recognize the State of Palestine, without permanent borders, just as the U.S. recognizes Israel without permanent borders.
During the following three-five years, the issue of permanent borders would need to be resolved, including the possibility of territorial swaps that enable settlers to remain under Israeli sovereignty in exchange for territory from within the State of Israel – equal in size to that which might be annexed to Israel from the West Bank. At no point prior to determining permanent borders would Israel have the license to believe that the areas not included in the first phase of Palestinian sovereignty belong to Israel.
On the part of Israel and the Palestinians, all of this is predicated on the existence of two governments committed to a political process for resolving the conflict and not to manage it. Both governments need to declare from the very beginning that their intention is to create a reality of peace between both peoples.
It is also clear that to even begin thinking in the direction of a new peace process, there must rise a new generation of leaders in Israel and Palestine. The process of selecting those leaders should be democratic elections in both Israel and Palestine. Both peoples need to come to terms with the reality of seven million Israeli Jews and seven million Palestinian Arabs living between the River and the Sea, even after the horrific events of this past year.
There is no military solution to this conflict and this war really must be the last Israeli-Palestinian war. There must be legitimate leaders on both sides that represent their people and have the mandate to enter into negotiations.
The framework under which the negotiations take place works best when there are direct bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Additionally, a regional setting where there are developing normalization and diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab countries would benefit the negotiating process.
This is particularly important in the context of possibilities of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia as partial fulfillment of the Arab Peace Initiative from 2002. The regional context is important because it is within the region that common interests and threats enable the development of a regional architecture for mutual security, stability, economic development and cross-boundary cooperation.
We, as Israelis and Palestinians should reach out to President-elect Trump and express our preparedness to work with him and his team to help end the war in Gaza and to begin working together on the fulfillment of a vision of peace between the two peoples that share this land.
Gershon Baskin is a political and social entrepreneur who has dedicated his life to peace between Israel and her neighbors. He is a founding member of "Kol Ezraheiha - Kol Muwanteneiha" (All of the Citizens) political party in Israel. He is the Middle East Director for ICO - International Communities Organization, a U.K. based NGO.
Samer Sinijlawi is a political activist and a Palestinian political commentator from East Jerusalem. He is chairman of the Jerusalem Development Fund.