Many view the century plan as a variation of the Oslo Accords, due to the principle recognition of the Palestinian state, a kind of continuation of the Geneva Initiative by other means. In my opinion, this is a mistake, not because of the different subtleties of the border map - but because the Trump plan differs from the Oslo doctrine on two key and fundamental issues.

First, the Trump program does not see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major cause of the region's problems, and even specifically mentioned in the introductory sections. Historically, the topic that caught the attention of the Middle East was the Israeli-Arab conflict that touched the Arab states; The Palestinian issue was a marginal event of the big story, and the PLO over the years served as a kind of internal barrier designed to complicate Israeli-Arab relations. The peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan, together with the collapse of the Communist bloc, ended this conflict, and the Palestinian issue remains As a remnant of a bygone era, the past decade has seen a renewed rapprochement between Israel and other Arab states, most notably the Sunni Gulf states, and it is time to address the Palestinian problem in the context: not as a catalyst for regional normalization, but as a result.

Another important point concerns the core issues. The Oslo agreement laid the solution to these questions for an uncertain future, and this is because of the assumption that the mere entry into a peace process and talks will change the attitudes of the Palestinians. The thought was that they were turning to terror out of despair, and thus placing political hope would lead to the abandonment of terror and the formulation of moderate leadership, and ultimately also to a rational solution of the core issues. The Trump program is based on different assumptions and its mechanism is the opposite. An outline for resolving the core issues - Jerusalem, refugees, return, borders and everything else - is on the table right from the start, and the Palestinians are required to demonstrate a profound change as a prerequisite for progress: abandonment of terror, cessation of incitement, recognition of Israel and more. Will - will, will not, will not - will.

In both respects, the Trump program is based on a much more conservative and realistic worldview about human nature and the nature of conflict. This outline may not bring immediate peace, mainly because of the permanent Palestinian refusal, but as a framework for continuing the conflict - it provides a much healthier and more appropriate thesis.

And lastly, a few words about annexation: Unlike much excitement on the right, I think the annexation question is of secondary importance, if any. And the evidence is clear: In the same plan itself, land swaps are offered in pioneer sands and perhaps in triangles, areas that are annexed to the above. What prevents withdrawal from the settlement blocs and the Jordan Valley on the one hand, and what allows for the removal of pioneer sands, is not the legal status of this territory but its political situation. This plan is very good for Israel politically and it recognizes its security needs, but annexation in itself has no value. Herzl conceived political Zionism, Trumpeldor conceived practical Zionism, and in the last generation, among the settler right, a new stream - legal Zionism - was invented. As if changing the category of theoretical-Talmudic fiction has any practical significance.