INSS Director Maj. Gen. (ret.) introduced the session with 2 key questions that arise from the Trump plan: Is this a two-state solution, or a plan for one state with two peoples? And, is this a package deal, or can its components be implemented gradually or selectively? Three speakers commented on the plan. MK Gideon Sa’ar (Likud) stressed the fact that the plan endorses the Israeli narrative regarding the conflict. It ensures Israel’s security interests, challenges prevailing international opinions regarding Israeli sovereignty in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley, and recognizes Israel’s sovereignty throughout Jerusalem. The plan is a victory for the settlement movement, and demonstrates to the Palestinians that procrastination and obstinacy are not worthwhile. However, it is doubtful whether a viable Palestinian state can be created, and in any case, Israel’s campaign to validate its presence throughout the area will continue. Adv. Col. (res.) Gilead Sher believes that the plan is a direct continuation of previous international plans, and is in effect Oslo 3. Therefore, the plan can serve as a basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Israel would do well to pursue opportunities to separate from the Palestinians – this is an imperative in order to fulfill the Zionist vision. Annexation undermines this vision, and would harm Israel’s relations with Egypt and Jordan. Ultimately, no plan will resolve the conflict – only negotiations between the parties. Raising additional questions, Brig. Gen. (res.) Assaf Orion questions how much of the United States this plan represents – or just the administration. From a security perspective, it remains to be seen what reactions there can be on the ground. Surprising, rash steps incur rash, surprising responses. Finally, the plan calls for withdrawal from parts of the Negev. Is this indeed part of Israel’s agenda? All this must be weighed carefully.