US President Donald Trump’s “deal of the century” allegedly embraces some of the principles that the world had adopted decades ago: the creation of a Palestinian state within boundaries based on the 1967 borders; Israel compensating the Palestinians for the annexation of a small part of the West Bank by transferring Israeli territory the same size and of the same quality to the Palestinian state; and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. In reality, it does not endorse these principles at all. Rather, it empties these principles of all meaningful content, while conspicuously ignoring other principles, which are no less important, such as the agreement on a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees. More so. Along with its diplomatic proposals, the Trump plan allegedly offers a detailed list of possibilities for economic development. The problem is that a close reading of these proposals makes it difficult to find any truly generous offers to the Palestinians, especially when compared to the moneys now being sent to the occupied territories by donor nations and through the very existence of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA).

One would have expected a harsh response to the plan, particularly from the Arab world and the European Union (EU). The extreme caution with which the plan was accepted by these two parties, and even by Moscow, was surprising to everyone. Apparently, the US administration made a concerted diplomatic effort in advance to block an immediate rejection of the plan by the rest of the international community, by saying something along the lines of, “Read it carefully before you comment.” While some members of the Arab League congratulated the very release of the plan, sometime later, the league adopted a position that rejected the plan. Similarly, Moscow reacted negatively, too, but only a few days after the plan was released. So far, the EU’s response has remained cautious and diplomatic.

Josep Borell — the new high representative of the EU for foreign affairs and security policy, and until just a few months ago the Spanish foreign minister — began with a statement that left many surprised. As soon as the deal of the century was released he said, “Today’s initiative by the United States provides an occasion to re-launch the urgently needed efforts towards a negotiated and viable solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Nothing more and nothing less. But even after he studied the Trump plan and realized what it contained, and even after he promised that any “steps towards annexation, if implemented, could not pass unchallenged,” he reacted very diplomatically, saying Feb. 4 that the US initiative as presented "departs from the internationally agreed parameters," and that the EU would "continue to support all efforts aimed at reviving a political process in line with international law, which ensures equal rights and which is acceptable to both parties."

Borell is no newcomer to the Palestinian-Israeli saga. He is well aware that this is not a plan to encourage dialogue between the parties. Rather, it is dictating terms to the Palestinians, and that even if the Palestinian entity is called a state, it will still have only limited autonomy in all its affairs, including its right to absorb and grant citizenship to immigrants. The fact that the American right has taken the side of the Israeli right does not leave any opening for a renewal of talks between the two parties. On the contrary, it should make that even less likely to happen.