The proposed plan by Donald Trump for the US to assume control of Gaza, displacing its inhabitants in the process, faces significant obstacles. The cooperation of Arab nations, such as Jordan and Egypt, which Trump hopes will absorb Gaza’s population, is currently unattainable. Additionally, Saudi Arabia, potentially responsible for financing the endeavor, is reluctant to support it. Moreover, key Western allies of the US and Israel oppose the concept.
While some Palestinians in Gaza might contemplate leaving under different circumstances, a substantial number would remain even if a million departed. Evicting them could necessitate the use of force by the United States, a move that would likely be unpopular following the troubled US intervention in Iraq in 2003.
Such a strategy would effectively eliminate any lingering hopes for a two-state solution, the long-standing goal of establishing an independent Palestine alongside Israel. Despite the US government’s historical support for this framework, the current Israeli administration adamantly opposes it. The Trump proposal would contravene international law and undermine the US’s professed commitment to a rules-based global order, potentially emboldening other nations with territorial ambitions.
Although the scenario Trump outlined in Washington, alongside a pleased Benjamin Netanyahu, may not materialize, the repercussions of his rhetoric are significant. As the US President, Trump’s statements hold weight and could disrupt the delicate Gaza ceasefire. The lack of a clear governance plan for Gaza’s future is already a source of tension, with Trump’s proposal exacerbating the situation.
This provocative announcement could fuel the ambitions of ultra-nationalist Jewish extremists who envision a Jewish-dominated territory spanning from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. These groups, aligned with Netanyahu’s government, strive to intensify the conflict in Gaza with the ultimate goal of displacing Palestinians in favor of Jewish settlers.
The response to Trump’s plan varies within Israel, with centrist leaders cautiously welcoming it and opposition figures expressing concerns about potential repercussions. Meanwhile, Hamas and other Palestinian factions may feel compelled to demonstrate strength against Israel in response to Trump’s proposal.
For Palestinians, the conflict with Israel stems from a sense of dispossession and deep-rooted grievances that cannot be easily resolved.
In 1948, during what Palestinians refer to as al-Nakba, or “the catastrophe,” over 700,000 Palestinians were either forced from their homes or fled as Israel emerged victorious in its fight for independence. The majority of these displaced individuals were never permitted to return, with Israel implementing laws that enabled the confiscation of their property. Now, as tensions escalate, there is a growing concern that history may be repeating itself.
Amidst the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, many Palestinians fear that Israel’s objective might be the destruction of Gaza and the expulsion of its inhabitants. Allegations of genocide have been leveled against Israel, and with recent actions by Donald Trump, some are inclined to believe that the former US President is aligning himself with Israel’s controversial agenda.
However, it is essential to approach Trump’s statements with caution. His rhetoric often mirrors tactics employed in high-stakes negotiations rather than reflecting official US policy. While speculations abound regarding Trump’s motives, it’s worth noting that he has expressed a desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, a coveted accolade in the realm of Middle East diplomacy.
Recent developments on Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, have hinted at his interest in brokering a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran. Despite Iran’s denial of seeking nuclear armament, internal discussions in Tehran suggest a growing consideration of nuclear deterrence in response to perceived threats.
The notion of a peace deal with Iran contradicts longstanding ambitions of Israel’s former Prime Minister, Netanyahu, who had advocated for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities with US support. During Trump’s tenure, Netanyahu successfully lobbied for the US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement negotiated by the Obama administration.
Trump’s strategic maneuvering, seemingly aimed at appeasing the Israeli hard-right while engaging with Iran, has introduced a new layer of complexity and uncertainty to an already volatile region. The repercussions of these actions could potentially exacerbate instability in the Middle East, raising concerns among global stakeholders.
As the world watches these developments unfold, the intricate interplay of geopolitical interests and shifting alliances underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the dynamics at play. The echoes of past conflicts and the specter of a contentious future loom large, underscoring the delicate balancing act required in navigating the intricate web of Middle Eastern politics.
