Donald Trump’s recent statement describing Gaza as a “demolition site” – and his suggestion to “evacuate” Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan to “clean out that whole thing” – has sent shockwaves across the region.
Trump reportedly told journalists travelling with him on Air Force One at the weekend that he had spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan and planned to talk with Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. “You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” he said.
He added that relocating Palestinian civilians to “some of the Arab nations, and build[ing] housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change” could be “done temporarily or could be long term”.
Israel’s extreme ultra-nationalist parties, both in and outside of the Israeli government, are thrilled by the idea. It’s one they have long advocated.
But it has been widely criticised across the region as a potential “second Nakba” – referring to the violence and displacement of Palestinians after Israel’s unilateral declaration of statehood in 1948. The proposal has also been outright rejected by Egypt and Jordan. It has also been strongly condemned by the Palestinians.
It remains unclear to what extent this aligns with US policy and diplomacy, but such rhetoric risks undermining the pivotal regional diplomatic efforts. These efforts, led by Qatar and Egypt in close coordination with Washington, are focused on continuing the negotiations on the ceasefire, monitoring progress, and verifying compliance.
So it’s far from certain if this is an official US policy position or another example of the US president simply airing his thoughts. But what is clear is that his latest pronouncement will further complicate the ceasefire deal agreed on January 17.
The deal already faces significant challenges and uncertainties, not least the mutual distrust between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. History tells us that this lack of trust has developed, in part, because of the numerous times ceasefires have been used for purposes other than pursuing long-term settlement, such as opportunities to regroup, rearm or reposition strategically.
So the staged nature of the current deal carries considerable risks, as it creates opportunities for “spoilers” on both sides to derail the process. The recent violence of Jewish settlers on the West Bank and Hamas’s active encouragement of confrontation there are other examples of things that could derail the ceasefire.
The negotiation process is further complicated by dynamics tied to the political survival of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. One party (Jewish Power) has already left his coalition government in protest against the ceasefire. Meanwhile the leader of the Religious Zionist party, Bezalel Smotrich, has threatened to do the same if the military operation against Hamas is not resumed.
Hamas, in turn, has attempted to reassert its control in Gaza. We’ve seen examples of that during the hostage exchange process when Hamas fighters conspicuously present at the handovers. Hamas may have been severely weakened, but it still controls significant parts of Gaza’s bureaucracy and policing and wants the world to know it.
Challenges ahead
If any part of the agreement falters there is a substantial risk that each side will blame the other of breaching the terms of the ceasefire. Two of the most contentious issues in the second phase are determining who will govern Gaza and how to implement a full Israeli withdrawal.
While Israel continues its security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, it vehemently opposes any PA role in Gaza. There is also considerable doubt as to whether Israel will agree to any long-term solution which involves complete withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from Gaza.
The recent resignation of the IDF’s chief of staff Herzl Halevi, as he took responsibility for the IDF’s failures on October 7, has further destabilised the political and military dynamics in Israel. A lot will depend on his successor.
Transactional diplomacy
Recent geopolitical shifts have reshaped regional dynamics. This presents challenges and opportunities for any diplomatic initiatives surrounding Israel and Palestine. The weakening of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance”, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon – and the now-collapsed Assad regime in Syria – may provide an opportunity for the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This in turn will offer an opportunity to reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. This potential breakthrough builds on the Abraham accords, which was one of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives. It’s a transactional approach to diplomacy, which prioritises pragmatic and results-oriented negotiations.
The new US Middle East envoy, former real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has emphasised “courageous diplomacy”, as well as strong leadership and what he called “reciprocal actions” from the parties to the peace deal. Whether the new US administration will revive the 2020 Trump plan for a Palestinian state remains uncertain.
That plan proposed granting 70% of the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinians while allowing Israel to retain sovereignty over Jerusalem. It also included US approval for Israeli annexation of territories with Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
For Israel, normalisation with Saudi Arabia would be a major diplomatic victory. Washington is playing a crucial role here, offering incentives such as sale of advanced American weapons systems to Riyadh. But Saudi Arabia has reportedly demanded concrete steps toward establishing a Palestinian state as part of the deal. Trump’s latest gambit, if it becomes official US policy, would make that a non-starter.
Karin Aggestam does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
