Jag har flera gånger under årens lopp konstaterat att Herb Keinon ofta gör en bra analys. Här en text från Jerusalem Post:
Trump’s Middle East plan: Big dreams, grand vision - but lacking details for success
Like Oslo before it, the Trump plan soars in vision but stumbles on specifics...
...When he unveiled his 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the White House last month, it wasn’t – in his telling – merely a plan that would end the Israel-Hamas War, but one that would put an end to “things that have been going on [in the Middle East] for hundred of years and thousands of years.”
In the Knesset last week, he had this to say: “This is not only the end of a war. This is the end of an age of terror and death, and the beginning of the age of faith and hope and of God. It’s the start of a grand concord and lasting harmony for Israel and all the nations of what will soon be a truly magnificent region.... This is the historic dawn of a new Middle East.”...
...The “foundational idea” he came to, he said, was “that people just want to be able to live with security and live freely. They want to be together. They want to have economic opportunity. They want their children to be able to live a better life. And they want to safely and freely practice whatever religion they choose to practice.”
Kushner said that for him, it was all really about “just getting people to focus on how to make the future better, versus getting stuck in these old conflicts.”
It’s a wonderful thought, even utopian. But it reveals a distinctly American, perhaps Western, inclination to underestimate how ideology – and often theology, of the most absolutist kind – shapes lives in this region. Not everyone just wants a Cadillac.
For some, “making the future better” means ensuring that you aren’t part of it. That is what Israel faces with Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood ideology that animates it – the same ideology that also courses through two of the plan’s key partners: Turkey and Qatar...
...Trump’s 20-point plan is still very much a work in progress. Nevertheless, it has echoes of the same structural weakness that doomed Oslo. It paints a sweeping picture – Gaza reborn as a “deradicalized terror-free zone,” Arab nations rebuilding it, trade flourishing – but leaves the operational details vague.
Who dismantles Hamas? Who demilitarizes Gaza? Who polices it? Who pays for reconstruction? Who decides when the Palestinian Authority has sufficiently reformed and can, as the plan calls for, “securely and effectively take back control of Gaza”?
…Trump speaks as if the mere announcement of peace is enough to make it so. Yet the text of the plan reads more like a wish list than an implementation schedule. It envisions “phases,” “reforms,” and “guarantees,” but none are defined. There are promises of “international mechanisms,” but not a single binding clause spelling out who does what, when, and what happens if they don’t.
The result is a plan that is long on inspiration but short on details – Oslo redux, with a heavier dose of superlatives.
…This is all still being worked out. Until it is, and until the details are spelled out, Israelis would do well to stay hopeful but skeptical – and to avoid the kind of euphoria that followed the Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn, or its current equivalent: Trump’s Knesset address and the Sharm el-Sheikh conference that followed.
The Oslo architects believed that “details would sort themselves out. They never did, and the process unraveled. Trump’s plan risks following a similar trajectory.
Still, it would be unfair to dismiss the plan entirely as just wishful thinking. It brought the hostages home and ended the fighting with Israel in control of enough of Gaza to prevent another October 7. It also created a vision, and there is value in a vision.
But if Oslo taught anything, it is that peace cannot be built on vision alone. The road to success here is paved with clauses, committees, and checkpoints – in other words, with details.
Vance and Rubio, Witkoff and Kushner, are now in and out of the country trying to fill in those details. Without them, Trump’s “truthful hyperbole” risks becoming just that: hyperbole. Ambition can ignite diplomacy, but only detail can sustain it.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar