As negotiators from Israel and Hamas prepare to engage in indirect talks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, aimed at de-escalating the ongoing conflict in the Israel-Gaza region, it brings renewed focus to the enduring challenges of achieving peace. These current diplomatic efforts unfold against a backdrop of previous initiatives that have failed to gain traction, including former U.S. President Donald Trump’s “Deal of the Century” peace plan. This plan, unveiled in 2020, encountered several significant sticking points that ultimately prevented its acceptance by key parties and hindered its implementation.
A primary obstacle was the plan’s unilateral formulation, largely crafted without direct input from the Palestinian leadership, leading to its immediate rejection by the Palestinian Authority. This approach was perceived as biased towards Israeli interests, eroding trust and denying the Palestinians a voice in a process that would define their future. Furthermore, the plan’s proposed territorial arrangements were highly contentious. It envisioned Israel retaining control over Jerusalem as its undivided capital and annexing major settlement blocs in the West Bank, while offering a fragmented Palestinian state with limited sovereignty. This directly contradicted long-standing international consensus advocating for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders and a shared capital in Jerusalem, making it unacceptable to Palestinians.
Another critical sticking point involved the security provisions. The plan outlined a demilitarized Palestinian state with Israel maintaining overarching security control throughout the region, including at its borders. This condition was seen by Palestinians as an infringement on their sovereign aspirations and a perpetuation of occupation, rather than a pathway to genuine independence. The proposed economic incentives, while substantial, were largely dismissed by Palestinian leaders who prioritized political rights, self-determination, and a viable state over financial aid. Lastly, the plan’s stance on Palestinian refugees, effectively denying their right of return, and its proposed land swaps, which did not adequately compensate for annexed territory, also drew widespread international criticism and further solidified Palestinian rejection. These inherent disagreements underscored the profound chasm between the parties’ visions for a resolution, demonstrating the difficulties in imposing a framework that lacks broad consent and adherence to established international principles.
