Compared to the global euphoria into which the 1993 Oslo Accords were born, the Trump administration's Middle East peace plan was born into a troubled reality. In Europe, as well as in the United States, the familiar social and political order is in crisis, and the future us clouded with uncertainty. In the absence of hope that the world system will be able to resolve the bloody conflict raging from Afghanistan to Ukraine; in the absence of hope for the rehabilitation of war-torn Syria, Iraq and Libya, what can a plan seeking to resolve the conflict in a small stretch of land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea herald?
This question raises doubts not only about the principles upon which the "deal of the century" is predicated but also about the perception ruling the discussion about the plan as a whole.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
Despite a changing global reality in the 21st century, the conceptual system for describing reality and the parameters by which it is judged are still firmly enshrined in the logic, expectations, and concepts of the previous century.
This gap can first and foremost been seen in the expectation of reaching a consensual, final and stable solution that would birth sustainable and lasting regional peace. At the end of the 20th century, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prevalent theory of the "end of history" – a political and philosophical concept that assumes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government – could still be argued, but as Russia again resumed its role as a world power, this theory was set aside.
Even the most peaceful European countries are now agitated by elements undermining their security and gripped by anxiety about what the future may hold. Yet the prophets of peace continue to believe and preach that if we just think positively, reality will be positive as well. And if it's not – well, apparently we just didn't wish for it hard enough.
The Israeli discussion with respect to the US's Middle East peace plan also reflects fixed thinking patterns for concepts true for the last century.
Take, for example, the issue of the Palestinian state: The Right is struggling to accept the need to commit to recognizing a future Palestinian state, while the Left claims that the plan "does not offer the Palestinians a state by any reasonable definition."
However, 20 years into the 21st century, what happened to the constellation of the family is not happening to the state. Who now will dare argue that a single mother does not meet the reasonable definition of "family"? The same is true of states, a political phenomenon exponentially more complex than that of a family: In the third millennium there is more than one standard way to be defined as a state. And there exactly lies the failure: Thinking modernly in a reality that has significant practical dimensions has long since become postmodern.
The perception of the "deal of the century" as outlining an action plan must also be understood in the terms appropriate to the complexity of the new era in which we love. President Trump has taken significant steps in defining a new direction with respect to the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace process. As such, the plan should be interpreted as giving a much-needed boost of energy to a nascent system.
A discourse based on the concepts prevalent in 20th century-thinking sees the 180-page US peace plan as if it were a detailed work plan for managing a production line. But trying to carve a new reality as a complex phenomenon, especially during the transitional phase between planning and execution, is never a process one can fully control. This is something any businessman knows.
It is interesting to discover that back in the mid-1940s, in the controversy over when the UN's Partition Plan Israeli leader and later first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's mindset was that of the dynamics of creation. "A Jewish state on some of the land is not an end but a beginning," he said, adding that the establishment of the Jewish state "will serve as a powerful lever in our historic efforts to redeem the land in its entirety."
It is at the heart of the difference between the modern mindset, which is mechanical and restricted, and the current mindset, which can balance complex thinking with being open to the dynamics of creation, that the key to the appropriate and effective implementation of Trump's plan.
While the modern mindset has not given up the belief that every problem must have a solution, complex thinking recognizes that some problems are inherently beyond solving. Temporary solutions are possible provided that they do not demand relinquishing a timeless vision. National and religious dreams do not negotiate. This is true for the Palestinians and doubly so for Israelis.
