It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Netanyahu asked US President Donald Trump not to present the "deal of the century" before the Sept. 17 elections. He understood the complexity of the move well, even considering that the plan is most likely very much in line with hawkish Israeli positions.
This time he asked for the US to present its plan before the March 2 elections and I believe the move stemmed from distress, rather than hubris.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
From what we know so far, Trump's proposal is not so different from the principles presented by other US governments since the Clinton administration outlined its parameters in the late 2000s: Dividing the West Bank and establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.
Even if there is a possibility that Israel will exercise sovereignty over a larger area than previously proposed, it will still not be enough to convince Likud MKs to agree to establish a Palestinian state, nor will to change the position of the right-wing parties, without which Netanyahu has no coalition.
The "not an inch" position touted by the Right is still dominant and no gesture in the form of Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state will cause the political hawks to suddenly support Palestinian sovereignty.
It is widely believed that when the plan is presented to Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, Netanyahu will return from Washington victorious, portraying Trump as doing his bidding for him; the Palestinians will oppose the plan vehemently, and Netanyahu will them move ahead with a proposal to annex the Jordan Valley.
But this scenario may not unfold as expected.
I believe Gantz did the right thing by accepting Trump's invitation to Washington, where he will be briefed on the plan in person.
He would be wise to tell the American president that his party will not oppose it and that the United States should spare no effort to persuade the Palestinians to resume negotiations so as to expedite a historic peace agreement with Israel.
In contrast, Netanyahu will have to settle for an agreement in principle, but he will also have to admit that there are issues on which he and Trump disagree and that he intends to elaborate on then when he returns to Israel.
For Gantz, this may be an opportunity to meet with Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress, appear on American media and state that there is no such thing as a unilateral peace plan. If the Palestinians accept the proposal, he may add, his party sees no reason to introduce changes to the initiative.
This type of situation could pose a political trap for Netanyahu. With the elections merely weeks away, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit will surely deny any attempt to pursue the immediate annexation of parts of Judea and Samaria, and in turn, the coalition may begin to fracture just before the elections.
Gantz, meanwhile, will be able to play both ends against the middle by both agreeing to the plan presented to him, and by making it clear that an agreement must be bilateral.
