President Trump’s much-hyped Israeli-Palestinian peace plan has joined the other peace plans on the shelf. The advocates of the Trump plan sold it as a vision to improve the lives of the Palestinian and Israeli people. But the plan essentially imposed victor terms on the vanquished. Both sides are backed by powerful historical narratives that are irreconcilable. The Jewish narrative speaks of a persecuted people returning to an ancient homeland to build a new state. A Biblical homeland that existed around 3000 years ago with its capital in Jerusalem. The more plausible Palestinian narrative states that Israel is built on occupied land. A land that belonged to the indigenous Palestinian Arab population settled in the late 19 and early 20th centuries by Jewish refugees (fleeing European pogroms). But as unfair as it may sound, significant events have overtaken the Palestinian narrative. To state the obvious, Israel has marched from victory to victory since 1948. After the 1967 war, Israel tripled the territory it controlled, thereby ruling over a million Palestinians. In the same period, the conditions for the Palestinians have worsened enormously. The Palestinian leadership is divided between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) which recognized Israel in 1993 in the West Bank, and the militant Hamas movement in the Gaza strip, confronting Israeli might. Moreover, the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1967 resulted in over seven million Palestinian refugees. Today, many live in abject poverty in Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Palestinian refugees have to resign themselves to the fact that they are not going back to Israel. The Palestinians, despite historical wrongs committed against them, are in no position to make maximalist demands. If Ben-Gurion and Arafat could speak of co-existence, less killing and bloodshed, and fair treatment, then the current Israeli-Palestinian leadership should follow the path of peace A rising Israel is in a strong position seeking to impose its will on the Palestinian people. US power that strongly supports Israel isn’t going away. Russia and China, who have burgeoning economic ties with Israel have muted their support for the Palestinians. The deeply split Arab and Muslim world is in no position to help the Palestinians either. Israel, compared to authoritarian Arab regimes in the region, is a functioning democracy. While Israel’s abysmal treatment of the Palestinian population under its control can’t be overlooked, Arab citizens in Israel have some political influence. After the last Israeli election, the alliance of Arab parties (The Joint List) supported Benny Gantz over Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. In a significant change under Netanyahu, Israel has fewer qualms using its superior technology and military power to cause hurt to the hostile Palestinian population. Previous governments were less inclined to use overwhelming force, concerned about Israel’s democratic image. A result of Netanyahu’s more muscular approach is that the Palestinian body count has risen sharply. But the international criticism of Israeli actions has toned down. Israel controls roughly 85% of “historic Palestine”, leaving the Palestinians around 15% in non-contiguous areas to eventually call a state. It continues to address its perceived demographic threat by increasing Jewish settlements while planning to reduce the number of Palestinians living in Israel. There is little backing in Israel for a one-state solution or a return of Palestine refugees to Israel proper. Perhaps as an acceptance of changing realities, every new international Israeli-Palestinian peace plan offers less and less to the Palestinians. If nothing else, the Trump plan showed the unequal balance of power between the two sides, which lends itself to inequitable solutions. A settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fair to Palestinians seems unlikely. David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founder, and first prime minister, in a 1968 interview argued for the immediate withdrawal from all the territories (save for Jerusalem and the Golan Heights) occupied in the 1967 six-day war in exchange for peace. Ben-Gurion said, “in a choice between territories and peace, I prefer peace.” A far cry from Netanyahu’s Israel, Ben-Gurion held as the architect of Palestinian misery, also said that Israel’s moral compass was tied to its treatment of the non-Jews, living under its rule. The descendants of Jewish survivors of the Holocaust can surely relate. Similarly, Yasser Arafat, a major villain in the eyes of Israelis, said in his 1974 UN speech that “we do not wish one drop of either Arab or Jewish blood to be shed; neither do we delight in the continuation of killing, which would end once a just peace, based on our people’s rights, hopes and aspirations had been finally established.” If Ben-Gurion and Arafat could speak of co-existence, less killing and bloodshed, and fair treatment, then the current Israeli-Palestinian leadership should follow the path of peace. Even if there is no final settlement on the horizon, the two parties must remain engaged. Imposing victor terms is morally wrong and not a lasting solution to the problem. The two-state solution is still the only way forward. A Palestinian state that satisfies Israel’s security concerns but also allows the Palestinian people autonomy and dignity. The writer is an analyst and commentator on politics, peace, and security issues