In "Trump's Would-Be Palestinian Capital: Dangerous, Scattered Slums," Isabel Kershner and David M Halbfinger opine previous Administrations "have tried repeatedly over decades to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on far more evenhanded terms than the new proposal." I would argue previous attempts were even more biased in favor of the Palestinian Arabs than this one, trying everything possible to appease extreme and outrageous Arab demands.
This proposal would leave Arabs in control of roughly 82 percent of historic Palestine, which includes all of what is today called Jordan. While the new Palestinian state would necessarily contain two discontiguous pieces, since Judea and Samaria are geographically separated from Gaza, Israel would be left with numerous, isolated pieces surrounded by "Palestine," while also giving away areas that have been sovereign Israeli territory for seven decades.
The argument is mostly academic, since the Palestinian Arabs have done with this plan what they have done to all other proposals to give them another state: they flatly rejected it. However, this plan does serve one useful purpose by moving towards a modicum of fairness and reality.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein