Palestinians

The proposal could create a powerful new point of reference for any future Israeli leader, but it must not be adopted as a rigid operative blueprint.

An in-depth assessment of how Washington should approach Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy at a time when the strategic foundation for American involvement has deteriorated.

By granting Israel much more say over the sovereignty of a future Palestinian state and its ability to absorb refugees, the document may undermine the administration’s ability to build an international coalition behind its policies.

As currently constituted, the plan cannot be accepted by any Palestinian who cares about self-determination, but implementing some of its economic provisions might create room for negotiations down the road.

Bahrain, Oman, and the UAE have evidently decided that good relations with the White House are more important than echoing Palestinian anger or appeasing Iran.

The PA will likely limit itself to quick diplomatic thrusts in order to preempt Arab support and isolate Washington, but any Israeli annexation moves could trigger more drastic action.

Directly investing in nongovernmental enterprise and giving international approval to private competition can change the dynamic in individual countries, promote liberal economies, and give citizens greater agency.

Even though they did not share the same ideologies, Ben-Gurion, Begin, Rabin, and Sharon did share a common view of leadership and the role of the prime minister.

The stabilization efforts brokered by Israel’s defense establishment have kept a lid on things so far, but the hazards of this approach may be unsustainable at a time of donor drought and Palestinian institutional erosion.