Jeremy Bowen looks at Donald Trump’s ‘devastating’ plan to ‘take over’ Gaza by resettling its Palestinian population. For the first time in months, there is hope for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. Jeremy Bowen says the plan will mostly fail because not enough Arab nations will accept refugees who have fled seeking a haven from Hamas based on past treaties between the president and key private interests.
The US and Israel’s Western allies have also opposed the proposal. Even if most Palestinians left Gaza, many would likely stay behind. The US, fearing the “tactical option” would result in so many civilian deaths that it risked making the country willing to allow the creation of a permanent Palestinian state, would probably not welcome the use of force to evict them—certainly not as politically related as the domestic response to the Iraqi War.
Jeremy Bowen emphasizes that Trump’s plan, which came directly out of his imagination, would all but shut down any existing hopes for a two-state solution, something US foreign policy has long held as a goal since the early 1990s.
The plan would also pose grave legal and moral implications, violating international law and endangering the fundamental underpinning of the rules-based global order.
Depending on how Trump’s comments are interpreted, they could endanger the still-tempered ceasefire in Gaza as well as escalating tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.
Ultra-nationalist groups in Israel, the likes of which support Israel and oppose Arabs indiscriminately, may take Trump’s comments as an opportunity to exacerbate future failings against Palestinians.
Highlights of Trump’s Plan for Gaza
Without Arab Cooperation: Trump’s plan hinges on buying off Arab countries, which have mostly scorned it. Jordan and Egypt do not want to accept Palestinians from Gaza, which complicates the feasibility of implementation.
Violence the US can bear: Should the US push the Palestinians out of Gaza, it would leave a path of wreckage that would cost it dearly, similar to the incredible violence seen in prior wars in the region. This becomes even more alarming, especially when recalling the Palestinian exodus during the establishment of the state of Israel back in 1948, also known as al-Nakba.
End of the Two-State Solution: This proposal could end the two-state solution, the dream of peace efforts in the region. The Netanyahu government has never been interested in pursuing this option, complicating matters further.
Displacement: Trump’s plan would likely violate international law, especially related to the displacement of populations. This may increase tensions in the Middle East and the global stage, undermining long-standing sovereignty and territorial integrity traditions.
Palestinian Groups React: Palestinian groups, including Hamas, condemned Trump’s comments, seeing them as a danger to their existence and rights. The already tense landscape in Gaza is on edge, with the dread of history repeating itself.
Political Game: Analysts see Trump’s statements as more political positioning than substantive policy. He may believe he could be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize and is using this as the basis for taking such action against Hamas.
Conclusion: Jeremy Bowen
This is the analysis by Jeremy Bowen. Although some may view the proposal as ambitious, the absence of buy-in from pivotal parties and risks for further violence and instability are deeply worrisome.
Training data extends only until October 2023, and this clash has intricate historical undercurrents, so any discussion of resolving the more significant conflict must encompass all claimants, aspirations, and rights.
