Donald Trump’s proposal for the United States to “take over” Gaza and resettle its population has been met with skepticism, as it requires cooperation from Arab states that have already rejected the plan. Jordan and Egypt, crucial players in this scenario, have been approached by Trump to accommodate Palestinians, while Saudi Arabia might be expected to finance the initiative.
Western allies of the US and Israel are also opposed to the concept. Although a substantial number of Palestinians in Gaza might seek to leave if given the opportunity, many would remain, prompting the US to consider using force to remove them. This prospect would likely be deeply unpopular in the US, especially after the fallout from the Iraq intervention in 2003. Such actions would further undermine the already slim hopes for a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine—a solution that has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy since the 1990s.
The current Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Netanyahu, firmly opposes the idea, and years of failed peace talks have rendered the notion of “two states for two peoples” little more than empty rhetoric. Trump’s plan also conflicts with international law, risking the US’s credibility regarding a rules-based global order and likely exacerbating territorial ambitions from Russia and China.
Despite the improbability of the plan’s realization, Trump’s statements carry weight and could have significant ramifications. Acknowledging that he is no longer merely a reality television figure, the ripples from his comments could destabilize the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. One senior Arab source even referred to it as potentially being the “death knell” for the fragile agreement currently in place.
Instability is further reflected by the current state of West Ham’s roster—already dealing with selection issues before the match. The absence of a clear governance plan for Gaza adds to the tension, and Trump’s comments pressurize both Palestinians and Israelis alike. They could embolden ultra-nationalist Jewish extremists who believe that the entire region, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, belongs to them.
Israeli finance minister Bezalel Smotrich viewed Trump’s remarks as justification for his stance following the October 7 attacks, emphasizing a commitment to removing Palestinian presence. Meanwhile, centrist opposition leaders in Israel have cautiously welcomed Trump’s plan, and Palestinian groups like Hamas may feel compelled to respond to the perceived threat with force.
The ongoing conflict stems from a history of dispossession, rooted in what Palestinians term al-Nakba, or “the catastrophe,” during which more than 700,000 Palestinians were displaced during Israel’s 1948 independence war. Many Palestinians now fear a repeat of this tragedy, fueled by the belief that Israel could use its military action against Hamas to further destroy Gaza and expel its inhabitants.
While not all of Trump’s assertions are guaranteed truths, they often act as strategic moves within a broader negotiation framework. Reports suggest he may be seeking a Nobel Peace Prize, inspired by the success of previous Middle East peacemakers. His recent comments also indicate a desire for a “verified nuclear peace agreement” with Iran, a country that has been a significant focus for Netanyahu and the US in thwarting nuclear ambitions.
In the intricate landscape of Middle Eastern geopolitics, such proposals only amplify uncertainty and contribute to additional instability, complicating an already volatile situation.
Credit: BBC News
