A long day of silence had passed from the moment US President Donald Trump revealed his "deal of the century" Jan. 28 until Chairman of the Blue and White party Benny Gantz responded to it by declaring that it reflects the basic principles of his party. Gantz called the plan a “historic opportunity” to reshape the boundaries of the State of Israel for generations to come. He then went on to explain that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be unable to implement the plan because of the indictment looming over him. That is why it will be up to Blue and White to implement it. Gantz’s remarks reflect the views of the senior Blue and White party leadership. They think that the plan “meets all of our security concerns and creates an opportunity for a different approach to the conflict,” as No. 2 party member Yair Lapid put it.

The problem facing the Blue and White party is that the deal of the century is identified more with Netanyahu than it is even with Trump. One month before the third round of the March 2 election against Netanyahu, it is incumbent upon them to find a way to embrace the Trump plan and Trump himself, while at the same time removing Netanyahu from the equation. It is not at all sure that this is possible. What can be said with the utmost confidence is that after three years of headlines and hot air, the elusive deal of the century, which once looked like it would never be reached, came as a big surprise. It is a formative event in Israel’s political debate, changing agendas from top to bottom. It officially announces that the era of Oslo — the years in which debate centered on support or opposition to a two-state solution — is now over.

The big turnabout took place on the evening of Jan. 28, when the 45th president of the United States put a plan on the table that shattered the old Oslo paradigm. The new plan clearly meets Israel’s demands. It dismisses key issues in advance, like the right of return for Palestinian refugees and the partition of Jerusalem; it determines that West Bank settlements will not be evacuated; and it sketches new borders for the partition of the land. Even before giving Israel the green light to annex 30% of the West Bank, it forces the various streams in Israeli politics to formulate their positions vis-a-vis the plan.

Over the last three decades, multiple peace plans have been developed and put on the table by various American presidents. In each case, the Israelis and Palestinians engaged in direct negotiations, based on the initial assumption that Israel will have to give up territory, evacuate settlements and partition Jerusalem. All of Israel’s prime ministers after late Yitzhak Rabin — Shimon Peres, Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert — negotiated with the Palestinians based on the vision of a two-state solution. The right opposed this categorically, while the center-left supported it. In fact, it was the direction they chose from the outset. As for Netanyahu, it will be remembered that during his first term as prime minister (1996-99), he made a commitment to continue implementing the Oslo Accord, largely as a result of enormous pressure from US President Bill Clinton. Despite panicked cries on the right, Netanyahu went on to sign the Hebron Protocol and the Wye River Memorandum, too. In 2009, during his second term as prime minister, Netanyahu delivered his Bar Ilan speech, expressing support for the idea of a two-state solution, this time due to pressure from US President Barack Obama. Prime ministers Barak and Olmert went very far, each in their own way, in their concessions to the Palestinians, who even expressed a willingness to partition Jerusalem.