Mere weeks before a historic window of opportunity opens up, concerns are growing within the Israeli right-wing camp. "We can't accept the Trump plan as is. I don't accept a Palestinian state or the handing over of territory, I don't accept isolated communities in the heart of [Judea and Samaria] or the fact that most of Judea and Samaria will be in Palestinian hands," said Likud MK Gideon Sa'ar. "When a plan ends with the creation of a Palestinian state, I think this is a misleading component that doesn't comply with the reality," said MK Zvika Hauser (Derech Eretz). "If the plan's outcome is a terror state in Judea and Samaria, and will encompass isolated communities and include a construction freeze, then we are prepared to forego sovereignty," said Yesha Council Chairman David Elhayani.
Indeed, the American administration's peace plan is not perfect. Theoretical as it may be, the willingness to recognize a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, is a tough pill to swallow. Even a settlement freeze limited to four years is "convenient code-speak for someone who really means 'eradicate'" (Benjamin Netanyahu, A Place Among the Nations).
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
This fastidiousness, however, is misplaced. Israel needs to adopt the Trump outline, because of the fact that right now it doesn't exact any price from Israel.
As US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman told Israel Hayom, the Israeli government is not obligated at this time to adopt the plan in its entirety. From the perspective of the Americans, Netanyahu's agreement to enter talks with the Palestinians on the basis of the Trump plan is sufficient, and there will be room for improvements and adjustments later on. Until then, aside from a construction freeze, the plan's deficiencies are strictly theoretical.
Hence the fundamental question is whether Israel will be in a better situation with the plan or without it, and the answer is that the plan's three basic components – total Israeli security supremacy, unrealistic preconditions for the establishment of a Palestinian state and immediate Israeli sovereignty over one-third of the territory – will give it good starting position in any future scenario.
And what are these scenarios? In six months, Trump could lose the presidential election. Replacing him could be Democratic nominee, Joe Biden, who has clashed with Israel in the past over its plan to build homes in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, and has already voiced his opposition to the application of sovereignty.
Under the assumption that Biden is the next president – wouldn't it be better to confront him with one-third of the territory already in our hands? Wouldn't it be better to be armed with the tangible conditions of the Trump plan, when he demands the creation of a Palestinian state?
Yes, Biden could rescind Trump's promises, and yet a modicum of governmental continuity between administrations still exists. Harsh dictates to Israel are one thing. Harsh dictates that also violate promises are Another thing altogether, and even a rigid Democratic administration would think hard before doing so.
The other possibility is a Trump victory and another four years in the Oval Office. In this scenario, the Palestinians will likely continue to boycott him and us. In the meantime, after the four-year waiting period stipulated by the plan and toward the end of Trump's second term, Israel will be able to ask to expand its sovereignty in Judea and Samaria beyond the 30% currently offered to it. Shouldn't we also take this scenario into account?
To be sure, the glass is not completely full. That's always the case in life. However, just as David Ben-Gurion established the State of Israel despite the exceedingly unfavorable UN partition plan, it is now incumbent upon us to grab history by the horns and apply sovereignty wherever we can in Judea and Samaria.
