Daily Times

In September, 2020, a joint initiative between the International Crisis Group and the United States/Middle East Project (USMEP), (having had benefited from the deliberations co-espoused by the Carnegie Endowment for Peace and the USMEP) published its thoughtful deliberations to help the Biden administration to focus on three- pillar approach to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And suffice it to say, the US’ Israeli policy became intentionally purposeful under the Trump administration—unjustifiably favouring the Israeli settlements under the so- called cover: “Peace for Prosperity Plan” that tilted decisively in favour of Israel’s continued occupation. In this backdrop, it should be the strategy of the Biden administration to mitigate and counterpoise the fundamental asymmetry of power between Israel and the Palestinians.

Though there appear some other elements, as to why President-elect Bidenprimarily welcomed normalisation deals between Israel and several Arab countries- presently the group of Six(UAE-Bahrain, Sudan, Morocco, Egypt and Jordan) and there is a growing possibility that some more may pursue the same course. Yet the Biden administration should embrace a multilateral approach instead of the Trump-orchestrated unilateralist approach to the conflict, coordinating with Europe and actively reintegrating Jordan into its efforts. The pivotal point regarding the thesis of peace indoctrinated by the joint peace initiative is: there is a high probability that the Biden administration could be tempted to limit its engagement on Israel-Palestine to mitigating the Trump administration’s damage and restarting negotiations. That could be nonetheless ineffective and unproductive.

Therefore, in order to bring the two parties on the peace negotiating table via a forceful diplomatic push might be productive, the Biden administration has been astutely advised by the group of joint Initiative to pursue a policy that is a fit to fulfill its unflinching commitment to international norms, respect for human rights, multilateralism and diplomacy. Against this backdrop, the International Crisis Group/USMEP proposed peace initiative holds leverage given the magnitude of resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within the ambit of justice and peace-ridden three pillars approach.

We may reasonably argue, The Biden administration should not only undo Trump’s toxic legacy, but also return to the dead-end Oslo peace process

One-Mitigate the damage of the Trump legacy and replace an emphasis on discovering a sustainable peace dialogue between the Palestinians and the Israelis. ‘’The Trump administration’s multiple decisions – including recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital; cutting assistance to the Palestinians; shutting down both the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem and the Palestine Liberation Organization mission in Washington; and effectively endorsing the legality of Israeli settlement activity – have seriously damaged prospects for a fair resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and depleted the reserves of U.S. credibility. Undoing key Trump policies should be a priority, but it ought not to be tantamount to reverting to the status quo ante, when saving the peace process – as opposed to achieving peace or setting conditions for it – too often became a goal in itself’’. The U.S. should prioritise halting creeping annexation and protecting Palestinians in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, where the blockade has precipitated a humanitarian emergency and threatens an escalation at any moment. Specifically, the new administration should:

A-Unequivocally disavow the Trump plan of January 2020, issuing a clear statement that the plan does not represent U.S. policy;
B-Focus on policies aimed at protecting the rights of Palestinians and Israelis. While the U.S. has historically affirmed and sought to safeguard the rights of Israelis to live in safety and security, it has been far less attentive to those of Palestinians to be free from violence, restrictions on freedom of movement, home demolitions, prolonged administrative detention and forced dispossession;
C-Reaffirm that Israeli settlements are illegal, and that the U.S. will not recognise Israel’s annexation of any part of the Occupied Territories, including East Jerusalem;
D-Reassert and strengthen differentiation between Israel and the Occupied Territories in all U.S. dealings, including reimposing geographical restrictions on the Israel-U.S. Binational Industrial Research and Development Foundation, U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation and U.S.-Israel Agricultural Research and Development Fund, thereby not granting funding to Israeli research and development projects in the Occupied Territories.

Two-Desist from actions that enable and empower Israeli policies seeking to prevent any peace deal or Palestinian state The U.S. should have an interest in encouraging conditions most conducive to a shift in Israeli policy toward the pursuit of a viable peace and an end to occupation

A-‘’Clarify that, in opposing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns toward Israel, the U.S. does not consider BDS to be, prima facie, anti-Semitic and will guarantee free speech rights;
B-Re-engage with the PLO leadership and allow the PLO to reopen its mission in Washington;
C-Reestablish the U.S. Consulate in East Jerusalem separate from the U.S. Embassy to Israel, actively support reopening Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem and affirm the U.S. intention to open an embassy to Palestine in East Jerusalem; D-Focus efforts on ending the blockade on Gaza and bringing security to those living in southern Israel and Gaza by advancing durable ceasefire arrangements between armed factions operating in the Gaza Strip and the Israeli government; E-Press Israel not to threaten Palestinian communities in Area C with further displacement, land expropriation and restrictions on movement, infrastructure development, construction and access to agricultural lands;
F-Work to remove Israeli obstacles to Palestinian private sector development; and
J-Restart funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which looks after Palestinian refugees until such time as their rights are fulfilled’’.

Three- Refrain from using its veto in the UN Security Council while doing so seems undermining international law or be at odds with U.S. policy;
1-‘’Work with the EU, its member states and other third parties, including in international forums, to advance the above objectives. The U.S. should cease to obstruct efforts by multilateral bodies and third parties to differentiate between Israel and the Occupied Territories, including with regard to the updating of the UN Human Rights Council database of business enterprises involved in settlements;
2-Avoid entering into negotiations with Israel over so-called acceptable settlement expansion;
3-Ensure greater transparency, end-use monitoring and accountability regarding security assistance to Israel, so that Israel can be held to standard U.S. human rights and other benchmarks for aid recipients.4-Help facilitate and encourage the Palestinians to undertake their own political renewal’’5-Work with international partners to encourage and facilitate Palestinian political renewal, including Palestinian Legislative Council, presidential and Palestinian National Council elections, and in removing Israeli obstacles to the participation of Palestinian East Jerusalem residents in such elections;
6-Support and promote internal Palestinian political reconciliation, conditioning U.S. engagement with a unity Palestinian government on its commitment to non-violence;  It should also work with the Palestinians to seek reforms in the financial assistance the Palestinian Authority provides to families of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails, so that such assistance is linked to their, or their families’, level of financial distress.

To conclude, we may reasonably argue, The Biden administration should not only undo Trump’s toxic legacy,but also return to the dead-end Oslo peace process, thereby pressurising Israel to accept the Arab Peace Initiative (API), proposed by the Saudi King Abdullah in 2002.