Less than a week into his presidency, US President Donald Trump revealed his stance towards the Palestinians by calling on Jordan and Egypt to accept Gazans on their territory, thereby practically adopting the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians.
Israel has not concealed its intention to displace the Gazans since the start of the genocidal war on Gaza more than a year ago. Both Egypt and Jordan explicitly and strongly rejected the Israeli ethnic-cleansing plan more than a year ago, and they have reiterated their position now against Trump’s proposal of evicting the Gazans from their homes.
Egypt and Jordan view Trump’s proposal as not only a threat to their internal security and stability, but also as a major threat to peace and security in the region.
Following his calls for the Gazans’ displacement, Trump announced in a White House press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week that the United States would take permanent control over Gaza.
He said that he intends to take over Gaza and to develop it to welcome foreign investment from around the world after expelling the Gazan population. Netanyahu endorsed the proposal despite its lack of feasibility.
At the same time, Trump announced his decision to cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). He said that he would state his position regarding Israel’s annexation of the West Bank in the coming weeks, adding that the only obstacle preventing Gazans from leaving their homeland was the lack of an alternative destination and reiterating his calls for Jordan and Egypt to take them in.
Despite being aware of the firm Arab rejection of his plans, expressed through a statement by six Arab countries forming a unified position against them, Trump has escalated the pressure on both Egypt and Jordan by threatening to cut US aid if they continue to reject his proposal regarding the Gazans.
The opposition to Trump’s proposal is not limited to the Arab states. A significant level of rejection of his plan has also emerged within the United States led by a good number of Republican lawmakers, as well as Democrats who view the proposals as unrealistic and doomed to failure.
Major Western countries including key US allies such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, have also rejected Trump’s proposal.
His calls for the displacement of the Gazans echoes his earlier initiative, known as the “Deal of the Century,” during his previous term, which was centred on annexing Palestinian land in the West Bank and giving it to Israel. Like his past “deal,” Trump’s new proposal is also likely to fail, as it ignores many important factors in the region as well as the imperatives of history and justice.
The proposal should prompt a reassessment of US foreign policy in the Middle East to reveal a profound misunderstanding of the dynamics of the region. Trump’s reliance on coercion as a foreign policy tool, evident in his threats against different countries, has been a key factor in past US failures.
Trump’s approach to the Palestinian issue, both in his previous and current terms, represents a clear departure from the long-standing US policy of supporting a two-state solution, even though previous administrations also refrained from enforcing that solution on Israel.
While previous US administrations balanced their support for Israel with maintaining alliances in the Arab world, Trump’s approach has been markedly different. This is evident in his decisions to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, shut down the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s (PLO) office in Washington, and explicitly endorse Israel’s policies of annexation and displacement, actions that past administrations pursued more cautiously to safeguard regional alliances.
Trump’s new presidential term is shaped by three key factors that define his stance on the Palestinian issue.
First, he relies on America’s stature as a global superpower to impose his vision by resorting to coercion if necessary, as reflected in his remarks on Canada, Panama, and Greenland. Second, he maintains unwavering support for Israel, lifting sanctions on Israeli settlers, and resuming the supply of heavy bombs. Third, he seeks to achieve a historical legacy unparalleled by previous US presidents with regard to resolving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
His pressure on Egypt and Jordan to accept displaced Gazans aligns with his decision to suspend US aid to numerous recipient countries for 90 days. While this decision has exempted Israel and Egypt, it has directly impacted Jordan, which has received over $200 billion in US aid since 1951 and is currently facing severe economic challenges.
Egypt, also facing difficult economic conditions, may also come under similar pressure. Both Egypt and Jordan are crucial allies of the US and receive significant military and security assistance, and Jordan hosts US military bases. With long-standing peace treaties with Israel, the two Arab states play a vital role in regional stability.
The Palestinian cause remains central in Middle Eastern politics, representing an unresolved historical injustice that has united all Arab nations and even their governments despite their differing policies. This reality has historically dictated the cautious diplomatic language adopted by previous US administrations, which favoured delaying any final resolution while maintaining unwavering support for Israel.
The Trump administration’s policies towards key regional allies, such as Egypt and Jordan, risk further destabilisation, a concern reflected in their strong official responses to Trump’s displacement proposal.
The US has a long history of misusing force and misunderstanding the region, often yielding disastrous outcomes for both itself and the people and countries of the Middle East. The post-Gulf War policies after 1991, which sought to impose a new order on the region while excluding Iran from the 1991 Madrid Conference on the Palestinian issue, demonstrated a fundamental misreading of regional dynamics.
Similarly, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan following the September 11 2001 attacks on New York and Washington led to millions of casualties and widespread devastation but failed to secure US objectives. The Taliban remained resilient despite two decades of the American occupation of Afghanistan.
Despite the elimination of former president Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq, no stability was achieved as the United States had hoped. On the contrary, Iraq became an entry point for other regional players that were not in favour of the American presence there.
Caught between its need to maintain a military presence in the Middle East and its strategic shift towards Asia to counter China, the US has struggled with policy inconsistencies across successive administrations.
Former president Barack Obama’s administration brokered a nuclear deal with Iran, which Trump later cancelled in favour of a “maximum pressure” strategy, only to now consider renegotiating an agreement. US policy towards Iran has thus been neither successful nor strategically coherent.
Meanwhile, in another contradiction, the US has sought to bolster regional allies’ military capabilities to counter Iran while simultaneously pushing for normalisation between Israel and the Arab states, a process fundamentally tied to resolving the Palestinian issue.
However, Washington’s reluctance to address the core Palestinian question to appease Israel further complicates the region’s geopolitical landscape. The dynamics in the region are becoming increasingly complex with the emergence of global powers competing with the United States for influence and adopting more peaceful approaches focused on cooperation and neutrality.
Despite periodic attempts to shift its focus away from the Middle East, the region remains crucial to US interests. The Gulf states are vital to America, not only as key energy suppliers to its European allies but also because their oil exports, which account for 60 per cent of global trade, have been tied to the US dollar since the 1970s.
Any instability in the Gulf would inevitably impact the United States. Saudi Arabia, in alignment with a unified Arab stance, has reaffirmed that a just resolution of the Palestinian issue is non-negotiable, particularly amid the ongoing tension and conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The Palestinian response to the displacement proposals has been loud and clear, as demonstrated by the massive return marches towards northern Gaza.
In today’s world, where nations claim to uphold justice, international law, and accountability, Trump’s call for Palestinian displacement is unlikely to find open endorsement. It is equally improbable that the international community will accept a repeat of the forced displacements of 1947-1948, and 1967.
Ultimately, the fate of the Palestinian people remains in their own hands. Their resilience and return to northern Gaza, and their perseverance and defiance in the West Bank, all reflect a collective determination to stay in their homes.
----------
*The writer is a professor of political science and international relations at the Arab-American University in Palestine.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 13 February, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: