Denis Charbit, political scientist: ‘In Israel, compassion for the hostages justified indifference to Palestinian struggling’

Introduction to Denis Charbit’s Political Analysis

Denis Charbit, a distinguished political scientist at the Open University of Israel and a leading authority on Zionism, has offered a provocative perspective on Israel’s diplomatic strategies during the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a recent interview, Charbit analyzed the interplay between humanitarian imperatives and political realities, arguing that compassion for kidnapped hostages often overshadowed concerns for Palestinian struggles—a tension he deemed both inevitable and troubling. His insights, drawn from decades of research and his forthcoming book, *Yitzhak Rabin: L’Après-Paix Assassinée* (“Yitzhak Rabin: Assassinated Peace?”), echo broader debates about the efficacy of peace proposals and the ethical dilemmas of external intervention.

Decoding Trump’s 20-Point Peace Proposal: A Critical Examination

At the heart of Charbit’s argument lies former U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial 2025 peace proposal, a 20-point framework designed to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate. Charbit contextualizes the plan within the broader history of mediation efforts, noting its unprecedented scale compared to prior agreements like the Oslo Accords of 1993. While the proposal included radical concessions—such as territorial compromises and economic integration—it drew criticism for omitting the West Bank, a core demand of Palestinian groups.

Structure and Scope of the Trump Plan

The proposal outlined 20 distinct clauses addressing borders, security, settlements, and hostage releases. Unlike incremental agreements, it aimed for a comprehensive resolution. Charbit acknowledges its boldness but emphasizes that its exclusion of the West Bank—a region central to Palestinian identity and political aspirations—rendered it incomplete.

Humanitarian Focus vs. Political Realities

Charbit argues that the proposal’s success in securing the release of 250 hostages by October 13, 2025, demonstrated the power of separating humanitarian goals from political deadlocks. However, he warns that neglecting Palestinian grievances risks perpetuating cycles of violence. “Compassion for hostages,” he states, “should not erase the moral imperative to address systemic injustices.”

The Paradox of External Influence: Trump’s Role in Israeli Diplomacy

Charbit contends that while Israel officially attributes the hostage release to domestic efforts, Trump’s mediation—a direct result of his administration’s policies—underscores the limits of Israeli sovereignty. He frames this dynamic as a paradox: a sovereign nation reliant on external forces to achieve critical objectives. This reliance, he suggests, exposes vulnerabilities in Israel’s geopolitical strategy.

The West Bank Gap: A Critical Oversight

The exclusion of the West Bank from Trump’s framework drew sharp criticism from Palestinian leaders and analysts. Charbit highlights this omission as a fatal flaw, noting that the region’s status is non-negotiable for most Palestinians. Without addressing settlements and territorial claims here, the plan lacked credibility among key stakeholders.

Balancing Act: Compassion, Politics, and Lasting Peace

Charbit’s analysis underscores a recurring theme in Middle East diplomacy: the tension between immediate humanitarian crisis management and long-term political strategy. While the hostage-for-hostage exchange achieved short-term stability, he argues it diverted attention from unresolved issues like Palestinian statehood and refugee rights.

Pathways to Sustainable Solutions

To avoid repeating past failures, Charbit advocates for integrated approaches that address both humanitarian and structural injustices. He stresses the importance of multilateral frameworks involving regional actors to ensure accountability and legitimacy.

Key Points: Charbit’s Framework for Israeli-Palestinian Relations

• Humanitarian prioritization can achieve immediate goals but risks neglecting systemic issues.
• Territorial disputes, particularly the West Bank, remain central to Palestinian demands.
• External actors wield disproportionate influence in shaping conflict outcomes.
• Sovereignty must be balanced with pragmatic collaboration to resolve entrenched conflicts.

Legal Implications: International Law and Accountability

Charbit’s work raises questions about the legality of unilateral actions in international law. While not directly citing specific statutes, he implies that prolonged occupation and settlement expansion violate principles of self-determination enshrined in UN resolutions. Legal experts might further examine how peace proposals align with frameworks like the Fourth Geneva Convention.

FAQ: Addressing Common Questions on Israel-Palestine Dynamics

1. What makes Trump’s peace proposal distinct from previous efforts?

Unlike incremental agreements like Oslo, Trump’s plan proposed sweeping territorial changes and bilateral concessions. However, its failure to address the West Bank limited its acceptance.

2. How does Charbit define sovereignty in the context of Israeli diplomacy?

Charbit views sovereignty as contextual, shaped by external pressures. He critiques the narrative of absolute independence, arguing that reliance on U.S. mediation exposes systemic weaknesses.

3. Can humanitarian efforts coexist with political solutions?

Charbit advocates for separating crisis response from peacebuilding but warns against using humanitarian gains to sideline political demands.

Practical Advice for Policymakers

Prioritize Inclusive Negotiations

Engage Palestinian stakeholders in territorial discussions to build consensus, avoiding top-down solutions that marginalize local voices.

Leverage Multilateral Channels

Involve regional actors (e.g., Arab League, EU) to balance power dynamics and legitimize agreements.

Monitor External Influence

While leveraging ally support, maintain diplomatic autonomy to avoid over-dependence on external actors.

Points of Caution: Risks in Modern Diplomacy

Overreliance on External Mediation

Dependence on foreign actors undermines sovereignty and risks leaving domestic voices unheard in negotiations.

Moral Dilemmas in Crisis Response

Humanitarian actions must not become tools to evade accountability for historical injustices.

Historical Comparison: Trump’s Plan vs. Oslo Accords

While the Oslo Accords (1993) established a framework for incremental progress, Trump’s proposal aimed for immediate resolution. Key differences include:

• Scope: Oslo focused on “land for peace” with phased implementation;
• External Role: Mediated by the U.S. and Norway;
• Outcome: Partial success in hostage release vs. stalled negotiations.

Conclusion: Toward a Balanced Peace Framework

Denis Charbit’s analysis challenges Israelis and Palestinians alike to reconcile compassion with pragmatism. By integrating humanitarian emergency responses with systemic reforms—particularly regarding the West Bank and territorial rights—a sustainable resolution may emerge. His work serves as a timely reminder of the moral and political complexities embedded in every peace proposal.

Sources and Further Reading

Primary Sources:

• Charbit, Denis. Yitzhak Rabin: L’Après-Paix Assassinée (2025).
• Trump, Donald. The Art of the Deal: Peace in the Middle East (2025).

Secondary Sources:

• UN Resolution 242 (1967) on territorial disputes.
• Fourth Geneva Convention (1949) on occupied territories.
• Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Hostage Release Framework.”