‘Man shall not live by bread alone’, says Jesus in Matthew 4:4. But biblical wisdom seems to have been lost on the organisers of the economic conference held on 25–26 June in Bahrain, where Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and key foreign-policy adviser, finally presented the outlines of his ‘Peace to Prosperity’ plan to end the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
The talks in Manama focused only on the plan’s ‘economic dimension’—in other words, the carrot before the stick. Over 10 years, some US$50 billion will be made available to the region (not only to the Palestinians), with wealthy Gulf states footing much of the bill. The tougher, political side of the deal is expected in the northern autumn, once a new Israeli government takes office after the election scheduled for 17 September.
Some US commentators close to the Trump administration have drawn comparisons with the US-led Marshall Plan after World War II. Having saved Western Europe from communism and Soviet imperialism during the Cold War, the argument goes, America is about to do something equally brave in the Middle East to counter the twin threats of Islamic fundamentalism and Iranian imperialism.
In launching the plan, the United States seems to be calling in favours from the Sunni Arab states that it has protected for so long. Moreover, resolving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict would be in these countries’ interests as well, because it would remove a potential source of destabilisation at home.
If this is not the art of the deal, then what is? The solution looks so rational, tempting and irresistibly simple. With real money now on the table, the participants will next discuss the political conditions, meaning the price the Palestinians will have to pay in order to receive such generosity. But there lies the snag.
The Marshall Plan sought to encourage Europeans to come together to receive American money. At the time, communist parties, supported and directed by the Soviet Union, appeared poised to take power in many Western European countries. Instead, Marshall’s visionary plan bolstered these countries’ national identities and strengthened their sovereignty.
Kushner’s plan, by contrast, would do the opposite, because it essentially ignores the issue of Palestinian sovereignty. More fundamentally, the US plan raises an existential question: can one buy the emotions and sentimental commitments that lie at the heart of people’s collective identity?
Read the article by Dominique Moisi on The Strategist.