By Thomas L. Friedman
Does Donald Trump’s potential resurgence as president indicate a decline in U.S. pressure on Israelis and Palestinians regarding a two-state resolution? Not entirely: It hinges on which version of Donald Trump takes the helm of the White House.
Will it be the Trump who just selected Mike Huckabee, a proponent of Israel’s West Bank annexation, as his new envoy to Jerusalem? Or will it be the Trump who, alongside his son-in-law Jared Kushner, formulated and unveiled the most comprehensive plan for a two-state agreement since the era of Bill Clinton?
You read that correctly: Trump was an atypical American president who actually laid out a detailed proposal for coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians. If that Trump reignites this initiative in 2025, he could be remembered as the leader who maintained Israel’s identity as a Jewish democracy while aiding the secure establishment of a Palestinian state alongside it. Conversely, if he chooses to follow the path indicated by the Huckabee appointment, he will likely be seen as the president who presided over the demise of Israel as a Jewish democracy and extinguished any prospects for a Palestinian state. Regardless, while Trump might not be interested in Jewish or Palestinian histories, those histories will certainly be paying attention to him.
The last occasion I spoke with Trump was four years ago, when he called to express gratitude for my endorsement of the Abraham Accords, which facilitated a landmark peace agreement between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. You can say what you will about Trump (and there’s plenty to discuss), but he has a knack for pursuing significant deals that can have deep, even transformative, repercussions. Recently, I spent a week in Israel and the UAE engaging with political, military, and business leaders, Jews, Palestinians, and Arabs about what Trump might undertake in their region this time around. There’s immense potential and desire for a breakthrough agreement—if Trump is inclined to pursue it and executes it correctly.
Trump has a foundation to build upon: the proposal for a two-state solution that he introduced in January 2020, titled “Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of the Palestinian and Israeli People.” Neither side will fully accept it as currently formulated, and the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent conflict in Gaza will significantly complicate any agreement. However, the “vision” in the title of Trump’s plan serves as a catalyst for Israeli-Palestinian discussions in the aftermath of Gaza. It remains the sole comprehensive peace framework any president has publicly presented to establish two states since the Clinton principles outlined 24 years ago.
The proposal allowed Israel to annex approximately 30% of the West Bank where the majority of Jewish settlers live, while allocating the rest for a demilitarized Palestinian state encompassing the West Bank and Gaza. Trump suggested extending Gaza by incorporating land from Israel’s Negev Desert to compensate Palestinians for some of the territory they would forfeit from the West Bank. This was not a direct land exchange as demanded by the Palestinians — more like a two-for-one arrangement. It’s not the plan I would have proposed, nor did it involve any Palestinian consultation, but it offered a baseline.
Moreover, Trump envisioned that Gaza and the West Bank would be linked via a network of overland roads and tunnels — but only after removing Hamas from governance in Gaza, as he demanded back then. The envisioned Palestinian capital would be located on the outskirts of Jerusalem.
Let me emphasize: Trump’s proposal will need to be adjusted due to the consequences of October 7. There is no chance it can be accepted in its current form by either side. But that’s not the main issue. The key takeaway is that it contains all essential elements to initiate discussions. The plan implies to both parties that a stable resolution must involve two states for two indigenous populations — with territorial exchanges and mutually agreed security arrangements that they must negotiate.
And never overlook: Trump’s 2020 plan bears some significant influences. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Ron Dermer, who was then his ambassador to the U.S. and is now his chief adviser, endorsed it back then, yet Bibi never formally presented it to his Cabinet. Instead, as Trump is aware, Netanyahu attempted to annex portions of land designated for Israel in Trump’s outline, but Trump intervened to stop him. Following that, the UAE declared it would normalize relations with Israel if Netanyahu merely pledged not to proceed with unilateral annexation of the West Bank.
This is how the Abraham Accords materialized. However, it was merely a consolation prize — a significant one, without a doubt — not the ultimate deal of the century Trump had envisioned.
Thus, if and when a cease-fire and hostage exchange occur in Gaza, I hope Trump will contemplate leveraging this historic second chance by inviting both parties to Camp David for a peace summit, with the stipulation that acceptance of the Trump plan serves as the baseline for negotiations — not the endpoint but the foundation — from which they can engage in dialogue. Is he capable of that? I’m uncertain.
What I do know is that taking the initiative would convey to both sides that Trump will not wait for their political landscape to catch up to discuss it, as managing this conflict is a crucial U.S. interest before we become further embroiled in a war in the Middle East than we currently are. And we recognize that Trump is not fond of wars in the Middle East.
It would also indicate that Trump is the one establishing and steering policy, rather than the right-wing, pro-Israeli settlement zealots he has appointed so far to Middle Eastern roles. Because if they — rather than the Trump peace plan — represent the trajectory the forthcoming Trump administration intends to follow, good luck even maintaining the Abraham Accords, let alone broadening them to Saudi Arabia. Trump will alienate America in the Middle East and globally. And that will occupy his time.
Should Trump choose to reinvigorate his plan, it would clarify to the world that Israel does not possess an unlimited mandate from us to engage in endless conflict in Gaza without a credible subsequent strategy. It would signify that Palestinians must unify their negotiating efforts instead of merely voicing complaints, and it would signal to Iran that Trump aims to diplomatically and militarily isolate Iran — by enabling the “Palestinians’ legitimate aspirations for self-determination,” as he stated in his plan, if they establish a secure peace with Israel.
This past week in Israel, I observed a common thread among the Israeli Jews, Israeli Arabs, and West Bank Palestinians I conversed with: they are all weary of this conflict — and many among both groups are contemplating emigration. As Hani Alami, a telecommunications entrepreneur from Jerusalem, noted: “Those who wish to leave, on both sides, are the ones yearning for peace, while those wanting to stay are the very ones eager to continue fighting.”
Surprise them, President-elect Trump. At the very least, you will be astonished by the vigorous debate you provoke within and between Palestinians and Israelis. At best, you may discover a spot in the annals of history that you had not anticipated.
