The area has been shocked by Donald Trump’s most recent speech, which described Gaza as a “demolition blog” and his advice to “evacuate” Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan to” clear out that entire thing.”
Trump officially told Air Force One reporters that he had spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan and that he intended to speak with Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the president of Egypt, over the weekend. “You’re talking about probably a million and a half individuals, and we just clear out that entire 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 serious ultra-nationalist events, both in and outside of the Jewish state, are thrilled by the plan. It’s one they have much advocated.
However, it has received a lot of negative reviews in the region as a possible” second Nakba” – in reference to the displacement and violence against Palestinians following Israel’s unilateral declaration of independence in 1948. Egypt and Jordan have likewise completely rejected the proposal. It has also been highly condemned by the Palestinians.
Although it’s not clear how closely this ties with US policy and diplomacy, such speech could undermine local political efforts that are crucial. These work, led by Qatar and Egypt in nearby cooperation with Washington, are focused on continuing the conversations on the peace, monitoring progress, and evaluating compliance.
So it’s not sure whether this is a US president’s official statement or another instance of the president’s stance being untrue. However, it is obvious that his most recent statement will make the January 17 peace agreement even more complicated.
Not the least of which is the underlying hostility between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, the agreement now faces significant challenges and risks. History tells us that this lack of trust has developed, in element, because of the many times ceasefires have been used for purposes other than pursuing long-term arrangement, such as opportunities to recover, regroup or reposition carefully.
The current deal’s staged character also poses a significant risk, as it opens up the door for” trailers” on both sides to disrupt the process. Other examples of events that could thwart the ceasefire include the latest riots by Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Hamas ‘ active encouragement of conflict.
The negotiation procedure is more complicated by relationships tied to the social life of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. One party, the Jewish Power, has now dissolved his coalition government in protest of the peace. However, the president of the Catholic Zionist group, Bezalel Smotrich, has threatened to do the same if the military operation against Hamas is no resumed.
Hamas, in move, has attempted to establish its power in Gaza. During the prisoner swap process, when Hamas fighters were glaringly present during the handovers, we witnessed instances of this. Hamas may have experienced a significant decline, but it still has power over much of Gaza’s police and government and wants the rest of the world to understand.
There is a high chance that one area may blame the other for violating the terms of the peace if any part of the agreement fails. In the second phase, choosing who will rule Gaza and how to employ a full Israeli withdrawal are two of the most controversial issues.
Israel continues to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) in the West Bank for security, but it is vehemently opposed to any PA presence in Gaza. There is also a lot of uncertainty as to whether Israel will consent to a long-term solution that calls for the Israeli Defense Forces ( IDF) to completely leave Gaza.
The IDF’s chief of staff Herzl Halevi’s resignation on October 7 as he accepted responsibility for its mistakes has more destabilized the political and military relationships in Israel. A lot will depend on his leader.
Transactional politics
Regional dynamics have been reshaped by new political shifts. This presents difficulties and options for any political efforts involving Israel and Palestine.
The deterioration of Iran’s so-called” shaft of weight,” which includes Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon and the now defunct Assad government in Syria, may provide an option for normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This, in turn, will provide an opportunity to restructure the Middle East’s political landscape. This potential discovery builds on the Abraham Accords, which was one of Trump’s international policy initiatives. It’s a interpersonal approach to politics, which prioritizes logical and results-oriented conversations.
The new US Middle East minister, original real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has emphasised” valiant diplomacy”, as well as strong leadership and what he called “reciprocal behavior” from the events to the peace deal. It’s uncertain whether the fresh US administration may revive the Arab state’s 2020 plan.
Palestinians would receive 70 % of the West Bank and Gaza, according to the plan, while Israel would be able to maintain Jerusalem’s sovereignty. Additionally, the US approved the invasion of Jewish-occupied West Bank regions by Israel.
For Israel, standardization with Saudi Arabia would be a significant diplomatic triumph. Washington is critical in this situation by offering incentives like Riyadh the sale of sophisticated American weapons systems.
However, according to reports, Saudi Arabia has reportedly demanded immediate action to establish a Palestinian position as part of the package. Trump’s latest strategy, if it becomes standard US coverage, would make that a non-starter.
Karin Aggestam is professor of social knowledge, CMES Director, Lund University
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.