Politics is usually a game of slow inches, but every so often, someone tries to flip the entire board. When the Trump administration rolled out "Peace to Prosperity"—better known as the Deal of the Century—in early 2020, it wasn't just a policy memo. It was a 181-page gamble that tried to swap old-school diplomacy for a venture capital pitch.
Most people remember the glossy photos of Jared Kushner and the map that looked like a jigsaw puzzle. But honestly, the actual mechanics of the deal were far weirder and more complex than the headlines suggested. It was a plan built on the idea that economic incentives could eventually drown out decades of deep-seated religious and territorial trauma.
Why the Deal of the Century broke all the old rules
For thirty years, the "two-state solution" followed a specific script. You talk about borders, you talk about Jerusalem, and you talk about refugees. Then, maybe, you talk about the economy. The Deal of the Century did the exact opposite. It led with a $50 billion investment portfolio.
Kushner’s team basically looked at the Middle East and saw a failing business that needed a massive cash infusion to pivot. They figured if you promised enough high-speed rails, industrial zones, and new jobs, the political stuff would just... sort itself out. It was a bold assumption. Some called it pragmatic; others called it totally delusional.
The plan gave Israel a lot of what it wanted upfront. It recognized Israeli sovereignty over roughly 30% of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley. It kept Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital. For the Palestinians, it offered a state with "limited sovereignty"—essentially a collection of enclaves connected by bridges and tunnels—but only if they met a long list of conditions, like disarming Hamas and ending payments to the families of militants.
The map that launched a thousand arguments
If you actually look at the map proposed in the Deal of the Century, it’s a mess of dots and corridors. It didn't look like a country; it looked like an archipelago. To make it work, the plan proposed a massive tunnel connecting the West Bank and Gaza.
Think about that for a second. A tunnel.
👉 See also: Casey Ramirez: The Small Town Benefactor Who Smuggled 400 Pounds of Cocaine
It was an engineering solution to a human problem. The designers wanted to ensure "contiguity," a fancy word for making sure you could drive from one end of Palestine to the other without hitting an Israeli checkpoint. But because the land was so carved up, the only way to do that was to go underground or overpass. Critics, including veteran negotiator Aaron David Miller, pointed out that the plan felt less like a bridge to peace and more like a blueprint for a permanent "sub-state."
The reaction was predictable. Israel’s Prime Minister at the time, Benjamin Netanyahu, stood in the East Room of the White House and beamed. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, meanwhile, gave it a "thousand no's." He saw it as a surrender document, not a negotiation.
Is the deal actually dead or just rebranded?
You might think the Deal of the Century vanished the moment the Biden administration took the keys to the White House. That's not entirely true. While the specific 181-page document is gathering dust, the DNA of the plan survived in the form of the Abraham Accords.
The Accords—the normalization deals between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco—were the "Plan B" of the Kushner era. When the Palestinians refused to come to the table, the U.S. decided to go around them. They realized they didn't need a final peace deal to start doing business in the region.
This was the real shift. The Deal of the Century proved that a significant portion of the Arab world was tired of waiting for the Palestinian issue to be solved before they could cooperate with Israel on tech, water, and defense. It was a cold, hard pivot toward realpolitik. Even today, as the region faces massive instability, the trade routes and intelligence sharing established during that era remain some of the only stable pillars in the Middle East.
What most people get wrong about the $50 billion
People love to mock the "Prosperity to Peace" workshop held in Bahrain. It felt like a TED talk for a war zone. But the actual breakdown of that $50 billion was fascinating. It wasn't just a giant check. It was a breakdown of 179 specific economic projects.
✨ Don't miss: Lake Nyos Cameroon 1986: What Really Happened During the Silent Killer’s Release
- A $5 billion transportation corridor to link the West Bank and Gaza.
- Upgrading power plants in Egypt to provide electricity to Palestinian areas.
- Massive investments in regional tourism to make the Old City of Jerusalem a global hub.
The problem wasn't the math. It was the psychology. You can't buy off a national identity. History shows that people will often choose their flag and their dignity over a 10% bump in GDP. The Deal of the Century underestimated the power of the "narrative" in favor of the "spreadsheet."
The harsh reality of the Jordan Valley
One of the most controversial parts of the proposal involved the Jordan Valley. This is the strip of land that borders Jordan. Under the plan, Israel would have kept military control over it.
From a security perspective, Israel sees the valley as an essential buffer against eastern threats. From a Palestinian perspective, losing the valley means being completely encircled by Israel, with no independent border with the outside world. It’s a zero-sum game. No amount of "innovation hubs" in Ramallah can bridge that gap.
Lessons for the future of Middle East diplomacy
So, what can we actually learn from the Deal of the Century? First, economic peace is a great supplement but a terrible foundation. You need people to feel like they have a stake in the system before they care about the stock market.
Second, unilateralism has its limits. The U.S. tried to force a solution without one of the two parties even being in the room. You can't settle a divorce if one spouse is locked in the car outside.
Third, the "outside-in" approach actually works for regional ties. While it didn't solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it fundamentally changed how Israel interacts with its neighbors. That’s a legacy that isn't going away anytime soon.
🔗 Read more: Why Fox Has a Problem: The Identity Crisis at the Top of Cable News
Actionable steps for understanding the current landscape
If you want to track where these ideas are heading next, don't look at peace summits. Look at the money and the infrastructure.
Track the progress of the "India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor" (IMEC). This is the spiritual successor to the Deal of the Century economic plan. It’s a massive rail and shipping project that aims to link India to Europe via the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.
Follow the "I2U2" group (India, Israel, UAE, U.S.). This group focuses on food security and clean energy, using the same "business-first" logic that Kushner championed.
Read the actual text of the Abraham Accords. Compare the language there to the failed Deal of the Century. You’ll see that the focus shifted from solving the "unsolvable" land dispute to building a "new Middle East" based on shared threats (like Iran) and shared opportunities (like AI and desalinization).
Understand that "The Deal" wasn't just a failure of diplomacy; it was a pivot point that changed the region's priorities from 20th-century borders to 21st-century networks. Whether that's a good thing depends entirely on who you ask, but it's the reality we're living in now.