Editor's note: Sun Xingjie is deputy dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Jilin University. The article reflects the author's opinions, and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

December 6 of this year marks the two years "anniversary" of Washington's announcement of the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, soon stirring things up in the Middle East. Within two years, the U.S. policy on Israel has undergone some fundamental changes, and it has successively presented Israel with a "big gift." 

Later in November, the U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced in his remarks to the press on U.S. Policy Towards Israeli Settlements that the U.S. had concluded that the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank was not, per se, inconsistent with the international law. "Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace," Pompeo added.

By this announcement, the U.S. makes it clear that it had shifted its policy towards Israeli settlements. The Trump administration believes the legality of settlements was up to Israeli courts. Basically, it also recognizes the legality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank as well as the legitimacy of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and occupation of the Golan Heights.

The relationship between the United States and Israel is taking a major turn, with President Trump giving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu near-universal support, which essentially shuts the door for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The three American "gift packages" for Israel are brought by the recognition of the outcome of the 1967 war in essence, in which Israel took over the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights, especially Jerusalem, and brought millions of Palestinians under Israeli rule.

With the occupation becoming long-term, Israel faces a tough dilemma: Is Israel a Jewish state or a mixture of Jews and Arabs? Considering the establishment of Jewish settlements, the West Bank has turned into an area where both Jews and Arabs exist. If the "purity" of the Israeli state is to be defended, Israel has to withdraw from the West Bank, and accept a Palestinian state instead.

The 1967 war expanded Israel's territorial space by making the West Bank became its strategic depth. At the same time, the war also changed Israel's security system: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict became the main threat deriving from the "occupied territories". As a result, "Land for peace", known as that Israel returned the land to the Palestinians and the latter gave peace back to the former, became the main content of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The two sides negotiated for several times, until Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak agreed to return more than 90 percent of the occupied territories to the Palestinians, in 2000. Nonetheless, Arafat rejected the compromise at last.

In 2002, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered the withdrawal of troops from Gaza though failed to pave the way for peace. When Benjamin Netanyahu, a notable hardliner came into power, he attached "decisive importance" on the disputed borders, territories, and strategic depth, making the negotiations between Israel and Palestinians even harder to achieve some results.

Given the specifics of the West Bank, the slogan "land for peace" is singularly inappropriate: To achieve sustainable peace, Israel must maintain a credible deterrent long enough to effect a lasting change in Arab attitudes. It is precisely Israel's control of this strategic territory that has deterred all-out war and has made eventual peace more likely."

In Netanyahu's strategy, the West Bank must not be discarded, for it is not only a buffer between Israel and Middle Eastern powers such as Iraq, but also touch on Israel's water security. If Israel was to retreat to its pre-1967 borders, it would have to consider defending itself with nuclear weapons. "The idea of reducing Israel to an indefensible strip along the Mediterranean would mean that it would have to resort to non-conventional means to defend it, for it would be left with precious few options." Netanyahu said.

Netanyahu insists on an offensive security concept and even pursues absolute safety. However, the situation in the Middle East has undergone some profound changes - Syria and Iraq are near-failed states that pose little threat to Israel, and Saudi Arabia's relations with Israel are easing. It is time for the two sides to reach a grand bargain and build peace together.

Since Donald Trump came into power, he has changed the policy towards Israel of the Obama administration, repeatedly broke through the bottom line of U.S.- Israel relations, and even sent a large "gift package" to help Israeli prime minister realize his dream. Nevertheless, Israel's security lies in Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation. 

In a word, U.S. strong support for Israel only makes Israel tougher instead of opening a window for the peace process. Now, the Israelis also realized the "achievement" of the 1967 war has become a burden. And the Trump administration ambiguously acknowledged the outcome of it, encouraging Israel to "carry on" and leaving the peace of the Middle East in limbo.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com.)