A Realtor’s Peace
It was important for Trump to play the role of
Zeus, abducting not Europe itself, but its agenda. As Politico aptly
noted, Davos is no longer associated with Greta Thunberg or the #MeToo movement
and has instead been transformed into a MAGA forum. In this respect, the White
House can reasonably claim that the reorientation of the agenda has largely
succeeded.
The substantive dimension, however, presents far
greater difficulties, primarily because Trump demonstratively ignores the core
of the problem. The Middle Eastern conflict, ongoing since the mid-twentieth
century, combines political, interethnic, and religious dimensions
simultaneously. Several generations of Palestinians and Israelis have grown up
within its logic of escalation and decay, shaped by distinct and often
incompatible frameworks of perception. Over time, the conflict has become so
entrenched that it defines the coordinates and parameters of international
political behavior across the Middle East, North Africa, and much of Central,
South, and Southeast Asia. If this puzzle resembles a Gordian knot, then
resolving it requires patient untying rather than a sword stroke in the style
of Alexander the Great.
The initiators nevertheless present the Peace
Council on Gaza to the global public and the conflicting parties as something
close to a diplomatic breakthrough, a long-term and ready-made solution to the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, more broadly, to the Arab-Israeli
confrontation. Trump’s twenty-point plan for a ceasefire in Gaza, however,
contains several structural flaws.
It is difficult not to notice that behind the
proclaimed peacemaking mission of this heavily promoted institution stands an
organizational design that concentrates unchecked authority in the hands of a
single politician, namely Trump himself. This conclusion follows from the draft
charter that has circulated in the media. The American president is empowered
to invite, exclude, and extend the membership of sovereign states, to approve
and effectively impose the agenda, to veto decisions of the executive committee,
to appoint his own successor, and to establish operating rules for any
structural unit within the Council. He also retains the exclusive right to
interpret and apply the provisions of the charter. Trump’s recent withdrawal of
a previously issued invitation to Canada serves as a practical illustration. At
the same time, it follows logically that once his presidential term ends, both
his personal authority and the Council’s institutional weight will diminish
accordingly.
A second problem concerns inclusivity, which
remains the key criterion for the success of initiatives of this kind.
Meaningful Palestinian representation in the formation of the Council is
effectively absent. The National Committee for the Administration of Gaza was
headed by Ali Shaas, who neither held office in Gaza nor governed the
territory, and who received his education in the United Kingdom. This allows
critics to argue with confidence that the initiative to unite states for
conflict resolution is aimed at imposing the will of the collective West on the
Palestinian people. The requirement of a one-billion-dollar membership
contribution further transforms the Council into a prestigious club of affluent
states rather than a genuinely representative diplomatic mechanism.
India and China were invited, yet neither has
rushed to confirm participation. Even if they were to do so in the near future,
it would be difficult to deny that they were not at the forefront of the
process. This is noteworthy given that Israel, which fully supported Trump’s
initiative, maintains a strategic partnership with India that has evolved in
recent years from arms procurement into comprehensive cooperation in security
and technology. China, meanwhile, remains Israel’s second-largest trading partner.
These relationships have nonetheless failed to bring Beijing and New Delhi
closer to the positions of Western Jerusalem and Washington to the point of
active collaboration within the Council.
Trump appears genuinely convinced that the core
problem of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, as with other international
disputes, lies in the fact that attempts to resolve it rely not on
transactional diplomacy, but on various chimeras associated with international
law. In his developer’s mindset, bargaining is entirely appropriate when, as he
put it, a “beautiful piece of land” is at stake, which he assessed in the
manner of a real estate professional. What remains conspicuously absent is any
clarification of for whom this land is beautiful and under what conditions.
East Prussia, after all, was once considered desirable by Germans until it was
returned by a Soviet soldier to the Slavic populations that had historically
inhabited it.
A well-founded impression emerges that the Peace
Council has little to do with Gaza or its residents. Gaza appears instead as a
pretext for the American establishment, with Trump as its frontman, to test a
restructuring of global diplomacy as a whole. This conclusion follows naturally
from an examination of the project’s documents and internal logic.
International law and established institutions, first and foremost the United
Nations, are replaced by personalized will and transactional arrangements. What
is being traded in this process is other people’s past and future.
Given Trump’s demonstrated approach, the Peace
Council risks sharing the fate of the Abraham Accords on normalization between
Israel and Arab states. Of the twenty-two members of the Arab League, only four
have normalized relations with Israel over five years, namely the United Arab
Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Trump also stood at the origin of that
initiative, presenting desired outcomes as accomplished facts with his
characteristic bravado.
It is highly likely that the Peace Council on Gaza
will fade into obscurity once Trump’s term ends, departing together with its
creator. Under any scenario, it will not replace the United Nations, since
unlike that body it does not rest on equal representation or transparent and
universally accepted rules. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict will therefore be
left to future generations of more responsible politicians to address.