In the past year, US President Trump has pursued “peace” around the world. A distinguishing feature of his efforts was the belief that financial threats or rewards could resolve conflicts. More recently, his government has proposed economic development plans as part of Israel’s peace mediation efforts in the genocidal war in Gaza, the war in Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Syria.

While some may view Trump’s “business” approach to “peacemaking” as unique, this is not the case. The mistaken belief that economic development can resolve conflicts has been a common feature of Western neoliberal peace initiatives in the global South over the past few decades.

Occupied Palestine is a case in point.

In the early 1990s, when the “peace process” was launched, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres began to advocate “economic peace” as part of it. He sees his vision of a “New Middle East” as a new regional order that will guarantee security and economic development for all.

The project aims to place Israel at the economic center of the Arab world through regional infrastructure – transportation, energy and industrial zones. Peres’ solution to the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is Palestinian economic integration. Palestinians were promised jobs, investment and improved living standards.

His argument is that economic development and cooperation will promote stability and mutual interests between Israelis and Palestinians. But that didn’t happen. Instead, as the occupation continued to solidify following the U.S.-brokered Oslo Accords and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, anger grew on Palestinian streets, culminating in the outbreak of the second intifada.

In 2007, this neoliberal approach was again tested by the Quartet, consisting of the United Nations, the European Union, the United States and Russia, and its special envoy Tony Blair. By then, the Palestinian economy had collapsed, with a loss of 40% of gross domestic product (GDP) in eight years and 65% of the population falling into poverty.

Blair’s “solution” was to propose 10 “quick-impact” economic projects and raise funds for them in the West. This went hand in hand with the policies of then-Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, which became known as “Fayyadism.”

Fayyadism was sold to Palestinians as a way to build a state through institution-building and economic growth. Fayyad is focused on generating short-term economic gains in the occupied West Bank while rebuilding Palestinian security institutions to meet Israel’s security needs.

This model of economic peace never addresses the root cause of Palestinian economic stagnation: the Israeli occupation. Even the World Bank has warned that without a political solution to end Israeli control, investments will fail in the medium to long term. But this approach still exists.

There are Palestinians who benefit from this, but they are not ordinary Palestinians. They are a small elite: security officials with privileged access to financial institutions, contractors with ties to the Israeli market and a handful of large investors. For the wider population, living standards remain unstable.

Far from preparing Palestinians for statehood, Fayyadism has replaced liberation with governance, sovereignty with security coordination, and collective rights with individual consumption.

This economic approach to conflict simply gives Israel time to consolidate its colonial enterprise by expanding its settlements in Palestinian land.

The latest economic plan for Gaza proposed by Jared Kushner, Trump’s adviser and son-in-law, is also unlikely to bring economic prosperity to the Palestinians. The project reflects two extremely contradictory dynamics: it provides global and regional oligarchies with opportunities for investment and profit, while systematically ignoring the basic national and human rights of the Palestinian people.

Security is designed entirely around the needs of the occupying power, while Palestinians are segregated, securitized, and surveilled—reduced to a depoliticized workforce, stripped of social and national identity.

This approach treats people as individuals rather than as nations or historically established communities. According to this logic, people should acquiesce to oppression and deprivation once they obtain jobs and improve their living standards.

These strategies not only fail to establish peace in Palestine.

In the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, the United States has proposed expanding the demilitarized zone and turning it into a joint economic zone with a ski resort. The U.S. approach appears aimed not only at forcing Syria to relinquish sovereignty over the territory but also to reposition it as a security project that primarily benefits Israel. Within this framework, the United States will act as a security guarantor. However, its close alliance with Israel calls its impartiality and true intentions into question.

In Ukraine, the United States has proposed establishing a free economic zone in parts of the Donbas region, from which Ukrainian troops must withdraw. This would allow Moscow to expand its influence without direct military confrontation, thereby creating a buffer zone that would benefit Russian security interests.

Donbass has historically been one of Ukraine’s industrial bases, and converting it into a free economic zone would deprive Ukraine of an important economic resource. There is also no guarantee that Russian forces will not simply advance and occupy the entire region after Ukraine withdraws.

These neoliberal “solutions” to the conflicts in Gaza, Donbass and the Golan Heights are destined to fail, just like the economically driven peace initiatives in occupied Palestine in the 1990s and 2000s.

The main problem is that the United States cannot really provide credible guarantees that these regions will remain stable so that investors can earn a return on their investment. This is because there will be no solid political solution given that these proposals ignore the politics, culture and, most importantly, national interests of the people living in these areas. Therefore, no serious or independent investor is willing to put money into such an arrangement.

Nations are not made up of consumers or workers; they are made up of people who share a common identity and national aspirations.

Economic incentives should follow, not precede, political resolutions that ensure the self-determination of indigenous peoples. Therefore, any conflict resolution framework that ignores collective rights and international law is doomed to fail. Political solutions must prioritize these rights, a requirement that is directly contrary to the logic of neoliberalism.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.