Trump's Gaza plan: Risk to Middle East stability and US credibility

In a recent article for Foreign Policy, the author critiques President Donald Trump’s suggestion of facilitating ethnic cleansing in Gaza, followed by U.S. ownership of the territory. Trump's plan, which he claims is supported by world leaders, is described as morally bankrupt and fundamentally flawed. The article argues that the proposal would not only fail to gain international support, but would also face immense logistical and ethical challenges.

Trump’s insistence that regional powers, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, would back such a proposal is dismissed as unrealistic. These countries have consistently supported a two-state solution and rejected the idea of resettling Palestinians within their borders. Furthermore, even Israeli settlers, driven by religious-nationalist ambitions, would oppose the plan, as they aim to resettle Gaza, not turn it into an American-controlled territory. The article underscores that Trump's notion of broad support for the plan may stem from informal conversations with his allies, rather than any concrete international backing.

The feasibility of executing such a plan is also questioned. While the U.S. military could theoretically take control of Gaza, it would come at the cost of American lives, and Hamas, despite Israel's efforts, remains a formidable force. The idea that Palestinians would willingly leave Gaza due to the devastation of ongoing military operations is deemed naïve. The article highlights the deep historical trauma of Palestinians, particularly the Nakba, which continues to shape their resistance to displacement. Any attempt to forcibly remove the population would likely result in significant violence and a violation of international law.

Additionally, the article argues that Trump’s plan would undermine his broader Middle East policy, particularly the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and Arab states, as well as peace treaties between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan. Such a move would destabilize the region further and empower adversaries like Iran, while also entangling the U.S. in a costly and dangerous conflict. Trump’s proposal contradicts his stated desire to avoid foreign entanglements and risks unravelling the fragile diplomatic progress achieved in his first term.

Ultimately, the article concludes that Trump's proposal is an impractical and dangerous idea that not only undermines U.S. credibility but also exacerbates the already volatile situation in the Middle East.

By Vugar Khalilov