Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
U.S. President Donald Trump’s relocation plan for Gaza holds a full range of political, strategic, and tactical implications. This is so even if the proposal itself never materializes. Moreover, even if Trump’s concept affirms in the minds of some that he “is a politician who is cunning but semiliterate and ignorant,” as military historian Eliot Cohen wrote in The Atlantic on February 13, or evidence of his “ill-informed, consistently wrong-headed instincts” as the London Guardian opined on February 22, his position is of cardinal consequence.
The political implications
The President’s initiative exposed the decades-old charade of the Palestinian “refugee problem” which was preserved to ensure not only that the Arab-Israeli conflict persists, but was cultivated inadvertently by the West through its financial and other aid. Thus, while 75% of Gazans carry refugee cards, which indicate the Strip is not their homeland but a temporary residence, they reportedly refused Trump’s relocation plan on the grounds that “nobody can uproot us [Palestinians] from our land [of Gaza].”
As the Wall Street Journal observed on February 5, Trump’s plan also upends the idea that Israel has the sole responsibility to find a resolution to the Palestinians’ plight. In fact, Arab countries have already been forced to work on an alternative formula that will end Hamas rule in Gaza and will allow Israel and the US to agree to the reconstruction of the strip with funding from Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar.
Trump’s approach also undermines the deeply held assumptions that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He is signaling openly that he is not buying the Arab narrative that the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be settled unless the Palestinian issue is resolved via the adoption of the two-state solution.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
Clinging to this formula that a Palestinian state must be established first has been the “license” most Arab regimes, fearing for their political stability, long believed they must advertise as a sine qua non to normalize relations with Israel. However, the Trump approach may have all but written the obituary for the goal of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel which, in the wake of the October 7 Hamas monstrous attack, has simply become a pipe dream anyway.
In one fell swoop Trump, by declaring Gaza an upcoming “listing” for commercially valuable real estate, is stripping the enclave of its status as a mythical bastion of “resistance to occupation” and a springboard to “liberating al-Quds [Jerusalem].” The ethos of resistance, as well as its philosophical forebearer — the “right of return “— is meant to put into question the entire Zionist enterprise. The policy aims to ensure the persistence of the conflict with Israel, continued material support to the Palestinians, and isolating Israel internationally.
Trump evidently recognizes this reality. His Gaza plan challenges Arab regimes by disburdening themselves of the Palestinian impediment that stands in the way of realizing their basic security interests, not to mention a new regional architecture which would benefit them greatly. Indeed, the endurance despite the war of the Israeli peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and of the Abraham Accords, attest to the ongoing significance of these Arab interests. Similarly, other Arab countries have responded to this dilemma by forging elaborate security and intelligence ties with Israel but keeping those quiet.
Little wonder that Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s new Secretary General, in a televised speech on February 16, rushed to condemn Trump’s approach as “very dangerous.” His plan, he warned, aims to “put an end to Palestine and the Palestinian people…[Trump’s] position amounts to political genocide.” However, the strategic implications of the Trump approach are even more momentous.
Strategic implications
Trump’s approach upends the decades-old U.S. policy, which began with Harry S. Truman and ended up with Joe Biden, of restraining Israel. Successive U.S. administrations feared that Israel’s military actions would harm American interests in the Middle East. At times, this apprehension has led Washington to even impose a partial arms embargo on Israel to enforce its will and carry favor with Arab capitals. Moreover, Israel, especially under rightist governments, was also seen increasingly as a wild card. Given the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security, Washington was concerned that the latter’s uncontrolled military undertakings could drag America into a dangerous international crisis.
Trump has put an end to U.S. efforts to curb Jerusalem. In an exchange with reporters on February 16, he said “ I told Netanyahu, ‘You do whatever you want,’” in Gaza, and added that the next step in the Middle East conflict was “up to Israel.” (This is a dramatic departure from the long-established U.S. modus operandi of rescuing the Arab enemy on hand, in the name of preventing a "military solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict.)
Whether intentionally or by chance (the uncertainty itself is of strategic importance), Trump’s relocation plan has the potential to break the endless cycle of Israeli-Arab/Muslim fighting. The proposed transfer informs Hamas and other Jihadists that any new attack on Israel would incur the ultimate penalty—loss of territory. Instead of them “liberating” Palestine they will end up losing whatever land they have occupied already. After all, these areas have been regularly used as launching pads for additional violence against the Jewish state. In turn, Jihadists' victory claims would no longer be possible to sustain.
live
Trump says Egypt, Jordan should take in Gazans
After the announcement of the relocation plan for the Palestinians in Gaza, the question of America’s loyalty in the Middle East has been put to rest. Muslim hopes to sap Israel militarily by keeping the Palestinian issue alive and thus in effect condoning a nonstop attrition war against Israel has backfired. The idea that the longer the war, the weaker Israel becomes and the greater the schisms between it and Washington (which was the trajectory under Biden)— is now a chimera. In fact, the opposite has happened —the longer the war and the greater Israel’s military triumphs, the higher its value has become to Trump’s Middle East vision and to his resolve to boost America’s standing in the world.
By also issuing an ultimatum to Hamas to release all Israeli hostages by a date certain or “all bets are off,” a warning he surely knew would not be heeded, Trump opened the doors wide for the IDF to resume full-scale military operations in Gaza. This is a dramatic denunciation of the Biden administration’s approach. Now Israel is expected to conquer the Strip. At the “conclusion of fighting” it is slated to hand over the territory to the U.S. so that Trump’s grand design of constructing a “riviera of the Middle East” can go forward.
3 View gallery
Armed Hamas terrorists in Gaza during a release of hostages
(Photo: Hatem Khaled / Reuters)
Trump thus put the Netanyahu government in a gut-wrenching dilemma: either take a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to dramatically advance Israel’s long-term national security objectives—i.e., neutralize permanently one of the multiple fronts the country faces and turn the tables on the “Palestinian problem “—or prefer saving the lives of Israeli hostages by continuing to adhere to Hamas’s game plan.
Trump’s approach is also notable for what it lacks. The new administration said nothing about the need to abandon the strategic positions taken by the IDF inside Syria in the wake of the downfall of the Assad regime there. So far there was also no condemnation or, for that matter any mention, of continued IDF attacks to enforce the ceasefire in Lebanon. IDF preemptive actions inside Syria to interdict efforts to smuggle arms into Lebanon or to block the reconstitution of terrorist bases there have also received the tacit endorsement of Washington.
Finally, Trump adopted the oft-stated U.S. position that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. Yet, this time the credibility of this commitment seems firmer given the President’s open account with the mullahs who plotted to assassinate him and his often exhibited single-minded and vengeful modus operandi. Any negotiations to impose stringent new curbs on Iran’s nuclear activities would be carried out under the greater certainty that failure to reach an agreement will likely unleash a (U.S.-supported?) Israeli preemptive strike. As national security advisor Michael Waltz told Fox News on February 16, Trump is “deadly serious when he says Iran can never have a nuke, and certainly not on President Trump’s watch.”
In general, containing Iran should be a top priority for the Trump administration given its commitment to revive the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) plan (which was first announced during Biden’s tenure in 2023 but since has largely ground to a halt.)
A land route and other connections would expand and integrate the economies of Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. It would also diminish Tehran’s regional influence, reinforce the Abraham Accords, and help set the conditions for eventual Saudi-Israel normalization. Importantly for Trump, it would also help counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
As Trump stated during his White House meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on February 14, “We agreed to work together to help build one of the greatest trade routes in all of history. It will run from India to Israel to Italy and onward to the United States, connecting our partners by ports, railways and undersea cables.”
Tactical implications
Not only does Trump’s Middle East strategy rely on Israel to finish the job in Gaza, but his administration is making sure the IDF has the wherewithal to accomplish the mission. First, the embargo put by Biden on certain equipment and arms was lifted as soon as Trump took office. (A shipment of 1800 MK-84 2,000 lbs. bombs previously withheld by Biden had in fact in Israel on February 16.)
Moreover, the administration has moved to provide new munitions. In early February the U.S. State Department announced that two separate arms sales to Israel were sent to Congress for authorization. One for $6.75 billion includes an array of munitions, guidance kits and other related equipment. It includes 166 small-diameter bombs, 2,800 500-pound bombs, and thousands of guidance kits, fuses, and other bomb components and support equipment. Those deliveries would begin this year. (The other arms package includes 3,000 Hellfire missiles and related equipment, deliveries of which are expected to begin in 2028.)
The new arms infusions assure that the Israeli Air Force will continue to perform as a strategic IDF arm capable of deciding a war.
Trump is providing Israel a carte blanche to “conclude the fighting” in Gaza. This is in contrast to the constant yammering by the Biden administration about the IDF offensive costing “too many innocent lives” of Gazans and the urgent need to allow additional humanitarian aid into the enclave. Both directly impeded the IDF operations and helped Hamas cling to power there.
In fact, the Trump administration rescinded a Biden-era order aimed at Israel that required the U.S. government to report potential violations of international law involving US-supplied weapons by allies, according to the Washington Post on February 24.
(Signed by Biden in February 2024, National Security Memorandum 20 (NSM-20) required for the first time all countries that receive weapons from the US to commit in writing that they will not use them to target civilians or restrict humanitarian aid. Also new was the memo’s directive for the State Department to report to Congress on the matter.)
Trump’s endorsement of the leveling of every building in Gaza to make room for his ambitious real estate project in effect adopts a scorched-earth strategy in reverse. Rather than the usual tactic where a retreating army destroys resources and infrastructure to deny an invading force their use and thus slow its advance, the Trump concept is using scorched earth to expel the local opponent and allow the U.S. to take control of the territory. After all, without the IDF leveling most of Gaza Trump’s plan is a non-starter.
The bottom line
Unlike the Biden administration which tried hard to block or at least slow down Israel’s singlehanded pursuit of the reshaping of the geopolitics of the Middle East, Trump is fully onboard this effort.
While few characterize Trump as a deep thinker of profound strategic grasp, Israel’s spectacular military victories and its post-October 7 muscular posture have left a deep impression on him and his administration.
Avigdor HaselkornIn contrast to the Biden administration’s “defensive” ideology where Israeli military prowess was viewed as a headache and “restraint” in the name of avoiding a “regional conflagration” was a cardinal tenet, Trump openly embraces Israel’s new “Never Again” mentality. He strongly supports the destruction of Hamas and Hezbollah and fully appreciates the role the IDF’s proven superiority can play in pursuing his goals vis-a-vis Iran.
In word and deed, Trump has thus put America squarely behind Israel in its quest to solidify its position as the uncontested regional superpower.
It might even be argued the President is prodding Netanyahu to exert Israel’s new strategic dominance without delay, including the resumption of full-scale military operations in Gaza. He undoubtedly expects the obliteration of Hamas to expedite the realization of his own regional grand design. As Trump put it “ Sometimes you have to make a decision… it’s a rough decision.”
- Dr. Avigdor Haselkorn is a strategic analyst. He has been widely published on national security issues.