Commentary: Why Trump’s Gaza plan is a non-starter for Arab states
US President Donald Trump has doubled down on his shock proposal to take over Gaza and relocate Palestinians. Here’s why Egypt and Jordan are pushing back, say NUS Middle East Institute’s Clemens Chay and Evangeline Cheng.
by Clemens Chay · CNA · JoinRead a summary of this article on FAST.
Get bite-sized news via a new
cards interface. Give it a try.
Click here to return to FAST Tap here to return to FAST
FAST
SINGAPORE: United States President Donald Trump’s proposal to displace Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” has ignited a chorus of condemnation from the region and beyond. That has not stopped him from doubling down on his plan, saying that he would “own” Gaza and that Palestinians would have no right of return in the future.
In doing so, he has leaned on both Egypt and Jordan to accept Gazans by threatening to cut off military and economic aid. On Tuesday (Feb 11) after meeting Mr Trump at the White House, King Abdullah II of Jordan pushed back - for a simple reason.
The plan has far-reaching implications for a raging Middle East and the world, both internally and externally. For Egypt and Jordan in particular, the issue is existential.
WHITHER THE CEASEFIRE DEAL AND PALESTINIAN HOPES?
The immediate impact of Mr Trump’s outlandish proposal is a potential derailment of an already fragile ceasefire – even before he dumped more fuel on the fire by suggesting the truce would end if Hamas does not release all hostages by noon on Saturday (Washington time).
Comprising three phases, the deal is focused not only on hostage and prisoner releases in the short term, but also the provision of aid and the return of displaced Palestinians. In the long run, it envisions a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, followed by reconstruction.
When examined through the lens of the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Trump plan – deemed revolutionary by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – signals the end of US support for the internationally-backed two-state solution, which has been a cornerstone of Arab states' diplomatic position under the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. It conforms to a pattern of full-throated support for extremist Israeli positions under the new administration, one that has emboldened Mr Netanyahu’s far-right allies.
It is worth noting that a key US ally, Saudi Arabia, swiftly issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state, after Mr Trump’s Gaza takeover comments. Senior Saudi royal and former intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal called the plan “not digestible” in a CNN interview and likened it to “ethnic cleansing”.
The United Arab Emirates, which has diplomatic relations with Israel, categorically rejected “any infringement on the Palestinians’ inalienable rights”.
There is Arab outrage over a proposal that violates international law – both the forced displacement of Gazans and preventing their return would breach the Geneva Conventions.
LONG-STANDING REDLINE FOR ARAB STATES
The wholesale rejection by Arab governments reflects a refusal to be seen as complicit in the forced displacement of Palestinians, and an awareness of the issue’s volatility among their populace – protests in Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan have already ignited.
Amman’s refusal to absorb Palestinians is actually a long-standing redline. It is closely tied to fears of a resurgent “alternative homeland” policy, where Palestinians would be resettled in Jordan as a means to resolve the conflict, but at the kingdom’s expense.
The shadow of Black September 1970, when Palestinian militant groups clashed with the Jordanian military, continues to shape its cautious stance. With half of Jordan's population already of Palestinian descent, and tensions between its citizens and refugees already high, the monarchy views the prospect of absorbing more as a dangerous overstep – one that some have even equated to a “declaration of war”.
Egypt’s security concerns are similarly critical. With Sinai already a volatile hotbed for insurgency, including Islamic State-linked groups, Cairo fears that any influx of Palestinians could transform the conflict in Gaza into a direct threat on its own soil.
This could turn Egypt into a launch point for anti-Israel operations, drawing retaliation – something already seen in the tense situation at the so-called Philadelphi Corridor, where the Israeli presence is viewed as a violation of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty.
Further complicating matters is Hamas’ ideological roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, harking back to the days under President Mohammed Morsi, stoking fears of reigniting similar instability.
A CRUMBLING RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER?
Mr Trump is only a few weeks into his second term, but the commodification of Gaza has been emblematic of the “move fast and break things” approach taken by the Oval Office in both foreign and domestic policy. Mr Biden’s “ironclad” support for Israel has been taken further, without even token acknowledgement of humanitarian concerns.
Besides having designs on Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal, Mr Trump has withdrawn the US from the United Nations Human Rights Council, halted funding for Palestinian refugees and imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court.
These actions threaten to dismantle the rules-based international order that the US once book-ended. It conveys the message that might makes right.
But there is a silver lining, however faint: Mr Trump remains a dealmaker.
In other words, if his Gaza proposal is deemed a non-starter by the Arab states, the onus is on them to come up with an alternative solution. A deal is what King Abdullah’s pledge to take in 2,000 sick Palestinian children for treatment and his description of Mr Trump as a “force for peace” in the region, are aimed at.
A deal will also be the objective when Egypt hosts an emergency Arab summit on Feb 27. The challenge will be finding something that will placate Mr Trump, while standing firm on the status of Palestinians. Giving in on the latter is not an option, as it could spell even bigger trouble for the regimes concerned than a superpower with imperialist designs.
Clemens Chay is Research Fellow and Evangeline Cheng is Research Associate at the Middle East Institute, National University of Singapore.
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
Get the CNA app
Stay updated with notifications for breaking news and our best stories
Get WhatsApp alerts
Join our channel for the top reads for the day on your preferred chat app