Long line of Israeli-Palestinian peace bids precedes Trump administration’s push

US President Bill Clinton (C) meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Barak (L) and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat July 25 at Camp David at the end of the Middle East Peace Summit. (File/AFP)
Updated 26 June 2019
Follow

Long line of Israeli-Palestinian peace bids precedes Trump administration’s push

The economic conference in Bahrain follows a history of peace efforts that have failed to overcome decades of distrust and violence.

Here is a list of the main plans and initiatives undertaken by the parties themselves and international mediators since the 1967 Middle East war, when Israel captured the Jordanian-held West Bank and East Jerusalem, Egypt’s Sinai peninsula and the Egyptian-run Gaza Strip and Syria’s Golan Heights.

• 1967 — UN Security Council Resolution 242

After the Six-Day War, UN Security Council Resolution 242 calls for the “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict” in return for all states in the area to respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence.

The resolution is the foundation for many peace initiatives but its imprecise phrasing — is the reference to all territories or just some? — has complicated efforts for decades.

• 1969 -1971 — The Rogers Plans

US Secretary of State William Rogers proposes three plans that focused on ending warfare between Israel and Egypt, whose forces were then glaring at one another across the Suez Canal. It urged that Jerusalem be a “unified city” with roles for Israel and Jordan in its civic, economic and religious life. It also called for a “just settlement” for Palestinian refugees.

• 1978 — Camp David agreement

Five years after the 1973 Middle East war, which began with Egyptian and Syrian offensives to regain the Sinai and the Golan Heights and ended with Israel still in control of the two territories, US President Jimmy Carter brings Israel’s Menachem Begin and Egypt’s Anwar Sadat to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, to negotiate peace.

In 1977, after a series of disengagement of forces agreements between Israel and Egypt, Sadat had become the first Arab leader to visit Israel. At Camp David, he and Begin agree on a Framework for Peace in the Middle East. It calls for an Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, an Israeli withdrawal in stages from the Sinai and a transitional Palestinian self-government in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

• 1979 — Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty

Signed on the White House lawn, it is the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab country. It set out plans for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai within three years.

• 1981 — Fahd Plan

Saudi Crown Prince Fahd proposes plan calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in 1967, creation of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital and a right of return or compensation for Palestinian refugees.

• 1982 — The Reagan Plan

After Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, US President Ronald Regan urges a “fresh start” in resolving the wider Israeli-Arab conflict. He proposes a five-year transitional period of Palestinian autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and negotiations leading to self-government by the Palestinians in association with Jordan.

• 1991 — Madrid summit

Four years after a Palestinian Intifada, or uprising, erupted in the West Bank and Gaza, an international peace conference convenes in Madrid. 

Representatives of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) attend, a historic first. No agreements are reached but scene is set for direct Israeli-Palestinian contacts.

• 1993-1995 — Declaration of Principles/Oslo Accords

Israel and the PLO hold secret talks in Norway that result in interim peace agreements. The accords call for a Palestinian interim self-government and an elected council in the West Bank and Gaza for a transitional period not exceeding five years, along with Israeli troop withdrawals. Negotiations would begin no later than the third year of the interim period on a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

• 2000 — Camp David summit

With Israel and the Palestinians unable to resolve core issues, US President Bill Clinton convenes Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak at Camp David. They fail to reach a final agreement and another Palestinian uprising ensues.

• 2002-2003 — Bush Declaration/Arab peace initiative/Road Map

George W. Bush becomes first US president to call for creation of a Palestinian state, living side-by-side with Israel “in peace and security.” Saudi Arabia presents Arab League-endorsed peace plan for full Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied in 1967 and Israel’s acceptance of a Palestinian state in return for normal relations with Arab countries.

Quartet of mediators — the US, the EU, the UN and Russia — presents a roadmap to a permanent two-state solution to the conflict.

Amid the Palestinian uprising, the plan calls for an “end of terror and violence,” Israeli troop pullbacks and an Israeli settlement freeze, all leading to final-status negotiations.

• 2007 — Annapolis summit

In the most intense US peace push since Israeli-Palestinian talks collapsed in 2000, Bush hosts a Middle East summit in Annapolis, Maryland. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attend and agree to resume talks, with the declared aim of crafting a peace treaty by 2008. Olmert later says they were close to a deal but a corruption investigation against him and a Gaza war in 2008 caused the negotiations to end.

• 2009 — Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan address

In a speech at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he would be prepared to reach a peace agreement that includes establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state. He also sets another condition: Palestinian recognition of Israel as the “state of the Jewish people.”

• 2010 — Israeli settlement freeze/talks resume — and end

Under pressure from US President Barack Obama, Netanyahu imposes a 10-month partial moratorium on settlement construction in the West Bank. Peace talks resume just before the freeze ends, and then break down within weeks after Netanyahu refuses to extend the moratorium.

• 2013 — 2014 — Washington peace talks/negotiations collapse

Israeli and Palestinian negotiators, coaxed to resume talks by US Secretary of State John Kerry, meet in Washington. Kerry says the objective is to reach a final-status agreement within nine months. Talks go nowhere and Israel suspends them in April 2014, citing its opposition to a unity pact between President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah group and Hamas.

• 2019 — Netanyahu says he intends to annex West Bank settlements 


Trump weighs Iran strikes to inspire renewed protests, sources say

Updated 58 min 41 sec ago
Follow

Trump weighs Iran strikes to inspire renewed protests, sources say

  • Trump’s options include targeting leaders and security forces, US sources say
  • Iran prepares for military confrontation, seeks diplomatic channels, Iranian official says

DUBAI: US President Donald Trump is weighing options against Iran that include targeted strikes on security forces and leaders to inspire protesters, multiple sources said, even as Israeli and Arab officials said air power alone would not topple the clerical rulers. Two US sources familiar with the discussions said Trump wanted to create conditions for “regime change” after a crackdown crushed a nationwide protest movement earlier this month, killing thousands of people.
To do so, he was looking at options to hit commanders and institutions Washington holds responsible for the violence, to give protesters the confidence that they could overrun government and security buildings, they said.
One of the US sources said the options being discussed by Trump’s aides also included a much larger strike intended to have lasting impact, possibly against the ballistic missiles that can reach US allies in the Middle East or its nuclear enrichment programs.
The other US source said Trump has not yet made a final decision on a course of action including whether to take the military path. The arrival of a US aircraft carrier and supporting warships in the Middle East this week has expanded Trump’s capabilities to potentially take military action, after he repeatedly threatened intervention over Iran’s crackdown.
Four Arab officials, three Western diplomats and a senior Western source whose governments were briefed on the discussions said they were concerned that instead of bringing people onto the streets, such strikes could weaken a movement already in shock after the bloodiest repression by authorities since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran Program at the Middle East Institute, said that without large-scale military defections Iran’s protests remained “heroic but outgunned.”
The sources in this story requested anonymity to talk about sensitive matters. Iran’s foreign office, the US Department of Defense and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The Israeli Prime Minister’s office declined to comment. Trump urged Iran on Wednesday to ⁠come to the table and make a deal on nuclear weapons, warning that any future US attack would be more severe than a June bombing campaign against three nuclear sites. He described the ships in the region as an “armada” sailing to Iran.
A senior Iranian official said that Iran was “preparing itself for a military confrontation, while at the same time making use of diplomatic channels.” However, Washington was not showing openness to diplomacy, the official said.
Iran, which says its nuclear program is civilian, was ready for dialogue “based on mutual respect and interests” but would defend itself “like never before” if pushed, Iran’s mission to the United Nations said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Trump has not publicly detailed what he is looking for in any deal. His administration’s previous negotiating points have included banning Iran from independently enriching uranium and restrictions on long-range ballistic missiles and on Tehran’s network of armed proxies in the Middle East.
Limits of air power
A senior Israeli official with direct knowledge of planning between Israel and the United States said Israel does not believe airstrikes alone can topple the Islamic Republic, if that is Washington’s goal.
“If you’re going to topple the regime, you ⁠have to put boots on the ground,” he said, noting that even if the United States killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran would “have a new leader that will replace him.”
Only a combination of external pressure and an organized domestic opposition could shift Iran’s political trajectory, the official said.
The Israeli official said Iran’s leadership had been weakened by the unrest but remained firmly in control despite the ongoing deep economic crisis that sparked the protests. Multiple US intelligence reports reached a similar conclusion, that the conditions that led to the protests were still in place, weakening the government, but without major fractures, two people familiar with the matter said.
The Western source said they believed Trump’s goal appeared to be to engineer a change in leadership, rather than “topple the regime,” an outcome that would be similar to Venezuela, where US intervention replaced the president without a wholesale change of government.
Khamenei has publicly acknowledged several thousand deaths during the protests. He blamed the unrest on the United States, Israel and what he called “seditionists.”
US-based rights group HRANA has put the unrest-related death toll at 5,937, including 214 security personnel, while official figures put the death toll at 3,117. Reuters has been unable to independently verify the numbers.
Khamenei retains control but less visible
At 86, Khamenei has retreated from daily governance, reduced public appearances and is believed to be residing in secure locations after Israeli strikes last year decimated many of Iran’s senior military leaders, regional officials said.
Day-to-day management has shifted to figures aligned with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including senior adviser Ali Larijani, they said. The powerful Guards dominate Iran’s security network and big parts of the economy. However, Khamenei retains final authority over war, succession and nuclear strategy — meaning political change is very difficult until he exits the scene, they said. Iran’s foreign ministry did not respond ⁠to questions about Khamenei.
In Washington and Jerusalem, some officials have argued that a transition in Iran could break the nuclear deadlock and eventually open the door to more cooperative ties with the West, two of the Western diplomats said.
But, they cautioned, there is no clear successor to Khamenei. In that vacuum, the Arab officials and diplomats said they believe the IRGC could take over, entrenching hardline rule, deepening the nuclear standoff and regional tensions.
Any successor seen as emerging under foreign pressure would be rejected and could strengthen, not weaken the IRGC, the official said.
Across the region, from the Gulf to Turkiye, officials say they favor containment over collapse — not out of sympathy for Tehran, but out of fear that turmoil inside a nation of 90 million, riven by sectarian and ethnic fault lines, could unleash instability far beyond Iran’s borders.
A fractured Iran could spiral into civil war as happened after the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, two of the Western diplomats warned, unleashing an influx of refugees, fueling Islamist militancy and disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, a global energy chokepoint.
The gravest risk, analyst Vatanka warned, is fragmentation into “early-stage Syria,” with rival units and provinces fighting for territory and resources.
Regional blowback
Gulf states — long-time US allies and hosts to major American bases – fear they would be the first targets for Iranian retaliation that could include Iranian missiles or drone attacks from the Tehran-aligned Houthis in Yemen. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman and Egypt have lobbied Washington against a strike on Iran. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has told Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh will not allow its airspace or territory to be used for military actions against Tehran.
“The United States may pull the trigger,” one of the Arab sources said, “but it will not live with the consequences. We will.”
Mohannad Hajj-Ali of the Carnegie Middle East Center said the US deployments suggest planning has shifted from a single strike to something more sustained, driven by a belief in Washington and Jerusalem that Iran could rebuild its missile capabilities and eventually weaponize its enriched uranium.
The most likely outcome is a “grinding erosion — elite defections, economic paralysis, contested succession — that frays the system until it snaps,” analyst Vatanka said.