The US administration is poised to unveil its long-awaited Palestinian-Israeli peace plan early next year, January or February at most. Most people do not know the details of the plan but it is reportedly ready. Seeing that Israel and the US are joined at the hip these days, it’s all but certain Israel will agree to the deal. And given the stream of measures taken by the US administration against the Palestinians, they will surely reject it.

US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley gave no details of exactly what is in the unpublished plan. She recently said it was much longer, contains much more “thoughtful detail” and “recognizes that realities on the ground in the Middle East have changed in powerful and important ways”.

Indeed the situation has changed, so much so that the Palestinians have already made clear they will reject the US plan. It is implausible that a plan drafted by the Trump administration will be acceptable to the Palestinians, certainly not after the steps it has taken: Moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, green-lighting Israeli settlements, defunding the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, ending US aid to Palestinians, and shutting down the Palestinian mission in Washington and the US consulate for Palestinians in Jerusalem. Further, a recent poll published by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 74 percent of Palestinians believe their leadership should reject Trump’s peace plan while only 21 percent want it accepted.

It would appear the plan is dead on arrival. However, doesn’t the US plan deserve the benefit of the doubt? Since all previous peace efforts have failed, shouldn’t original thinking be given a chance? Let’s see. The central thrust of the plan will reportedly focus first on an economic development program for Gaza and the West Bank - but only if Palestinians concede permanent control over Jerusalem, with large settlement zones for Israelis and a limited sovereignty arrangement that is several steps short of full independence.

Detailed planning for a free trade zone or building power and desalination plants in Gaza before tackling the political questions of Jerusalem, borders and refugees is sidestepping core Palestinian concerns. A Palestinian state should be established with East Jerusalem as its capital, not Abu Dis, a Palestinian village in the Jerusalem governance area and which is slated for the capital. The right of return of Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem and its holy sites are red lines.

So this long expected peace plan - the purported “Deal of the Century” according to President Trump - is widely expected to downgrade a prospective Palestinian entity in terms of its territory and effective sovereignty.

There is simply no space for further concessions on the Palestinian side that would be compatible with a notion of a sovereign and viable state. Any peace plan must include East Jerusalem as the capital and be based on the 1967 cease-fire lines.

If the US plan proposes permanent Israeli security control over the West Bank or permanent presence of Israeli settlers, this would go against fundamental norms of international order. Not only would such a plan fail to bring peace, it would exacerbate the conflict and make it even more intractable. The plan does not envisage a sovereign and viable Palestinian state in line with established parameters.

Any further downgrading of the envisaged Palestinian state would turn it into a mere Bantustan under effective Israeli control, and is certain to be rejected by Palestinians, just as it would be by any other people in their place.