The European Union against Trump's plan for Israel and Palestine

Despite the good Israeli impressions, due to the European Union's foreign policy leadership, and to Trump's own hopes, the US plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been rejected by Brussels. In addition, the declaration of the new High Representative for the Union's foreign policy expresses serious concern about Tel Aviv's willingness to continue with the unilateral policy of settlements in the West Bank. Apart from the dissatisfaction with the negative opinion on the plan elaborated by Washington, in Israel the even more relevant concern is for the position taken by the new head of EU diplomacy, which seemed to be more favorable to the Jewish state than its predecessor, but which instead he expressed himself with very harsh tones on Israeli settlement policy and that, consequently, does not promise substantial changes in relations between Brussels and Tel Aviv, despite Israel's hope that it would have been closer to the Union. In Israel it was found that the declarations of the European High Representative were immediately adverse for Tel Aviv and also the circumstance of the diplomatic trip to Iran, to underline the European commitment to attempt a solution to the issues of the nuclear agreement, was judged very negatively, especially for the development of future relationships. The judgment on the feasibility of the American President's proposal is highly critical and in any case will be assessed on the European position, repeatedly confirmed, which contemplates the coexistence of the two states. Legally, this position refers to the conclusions of the Council of the Union, relating to July 2014, which, in turn, refer to the borders established in 1967. It is understood that on this basis, which appears unchangeable, the position of Brussels is very clear and in contrast with what is claimed by Tel Aivi and Washington. The support for the existence of two independent states by the Union appears to be in contrast with Trump's plan, which is clearly unbalanced in favor of Israel. The numbers in Trump's plan reveal this imbalance, given that it provides for an exchange of territories to allow the annexation of the colonies present to Israel, but with a redistribution that would cause the Palestinians to reduce their original space to only eleven percent of the territory provided for in the 1967 agreements, which already reduced it by twenty-two percent. According to the European Union, precisely on the basis of these data, Trump's solution would be detrimental to international law, bringing the tension between the two sides to high levels. Brussels argues for a negotiation between Israel and Palestine, which includes not only the issue of the West Bank, but which also relates to the capital and refugees. On the other hand, it was the Palestinians themselves who rejected Trump's plan, cutting diplomatic ties with Israel and the United States, and the Arab League also expressed its opposition. However, some Arab countries, Washington allies and who have approached Israel for common interests against Iran, have asked the Palestinians to carefully evaluate the American proposal, recording a novelty on the Arab world's attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian question and showing how Palestinians are now expendable in favor of particular convenience. In this context, the confirmation of the Union's position denotes an appreciable consistency because in favor of international law, which will have to be confirmed by concrete action in the diplomatic direction, that is, with greater activism on the international scene through a first-person commitment.