Bad ideas are being drawn up over the Middle East. Donald Trump has called for a US takeover of Gaza in order to turn it into the “riviera of the Middle East”, expelling 2.1 million Palestinians in the process. This is a proposal for ethnic cleansing on a level not seen since the Second World War.

 

Is it all talk? There is good reason to believe Trump is bluffing. He has long decried America’s messy interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq; like the president’s tariff threats, this proposition could be a superficial bargaining chip. Nonetheless, Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, is now working to promote Trump’s proposal in his trip to the Middle East. Pretence or otherwise, the plan has gained traction in Israel—over 80% of Israelis support Trump’s proposition. And Benjamin Netanyahu’s public support for the scheme (“I am committed to US president Trump’s plan for the creation of a different Gaza”) indicates a new openness in Israeli policy. That engenders a context in which what is ‘moderate’ shifts to the right, and those hardliners in the cabinet finds it increasingly easy to get their own way.

 

In diplomatic terms, Trump’s logic is unconvincing. “They say they’re not going to accept. I say they will,” he insisted, referring to Egypt and Jordan. Such unabashed provocation might be the only thing to motivate the leaders of the Arab world to unite. Previously, they have been unable to settle on a shared position on Palestine. That might be about to change. In a swift rejection to Trump’s proposal, Saudi Arabia assertively reaffirmed that it would “not establish diplomatic relations with Israel” without the creation of a Palestinian state. Netanyahu exacerbated tensions by responding: “The Saudis can create a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia; they have a lot of land over there.” The gradual progress towards an Israel-Saudi deal that Trump was so keen to secure suddenly looks very far away. Certainly, the US president did not help his cause by suggesting that the bill for his grand vision of Gaza be placed in Gulf hands.

 

Egypt, which will host an emergency Arab summit on 27th February, has been the first Arab state to form a provisional plan for Gaza. This would entail no place for Hamas in the enclave’s governance, a condition which will probably feature in most propositions drawn up in the coming weeks. While this may be appealing to the international community, it is problematic. Ignoring the need for Palestinian representation in the rebuilding of Gaza plays along imperialist lines, and it is exactly the kind of thinking which engenders failure in the long run. (It is also precisely contrary to Europe’s logic that Ukraine must be included in its own peace talks.) Hamas is the only body to have been freely elected in Gaza. The Palestinian Authority—which could takeover in the strip, albeit in the face of fierce opposition from Netanyahu—is not a credible alternative; it has been governing the West Bank as if it were doing Israel’s bidding. The Fatah-controlled body recently carried out a siege on Jenin, for example, cracking down on those who since criticised the operation, including Al Jazeera.

 

Redrawing the map of the Middle East is evidently on the agenda, but it will go nowhere. Rather, these imperial dreams will bring Israel and the US head-to-head with the rest of the international order. After seemingly unconditional support for Israel’s war on Gaza, Europe has finally said enough is enough. Leaders across the continent reiterated their support for the two-state solution. Importantly, Germany—which considers support for Israel its staatsräson—rejected the call to expel Palestinians from Gaza out of hand. After so much support, Netanyahu is only just learning where the red line is.

 

This is also the first time Trump’s imperialist fanaticism has reached directly across the Atlantic. The bluntness of the president’s approach may further signal a shift in the methods he uses to achieve his goals. Both Jordan and Egypt are significant recipients of US foreign assistance, for example. It is no coincidence that King Abdullah II of Jordan appeared so timid in his trip to the White House, refusing to reject clearly the president’s plans for Gaza.

 

But Trump cannot and must not be appeased. The consequences of that possibility have already started to unravel. Justifying the idea of a US takeover of the Gaza Strip, neither the president nor his Israeli counterpart made any reference to Israel’s security. This was the source of legitimacy for the war on Gaza, and somehow for the scale of crimes committed therein. That it has not been employed to justify the crime of ethnic cleansing indicates an important change. Netanyahu feels emboldened. Israeli violence in the West Bank—which Trump has hinted potential support for the annexation of—has intensified over the last few months; more Palestinians have been displaced in the region than at any point since the 1967 war. Still, Jordan has already acknowledged that it will consider the expulsion of Palestinians into its territory by Israel a casus belli. A red line has been drawn. Alongside the announcements made by Saudi Arabia, this push for a tougher rhetoric should be emulated across the Arab world.

 

Imperialists have drawn the lines in the Middle East before—hence the mess we’re in today. It is typically in the aftermath of conflicts that such visions become reality. There is one thing that history can teach us: if peace is to endure in the long run, the people of the region must be the ones to draw the path for their own independence.∎

 

Words by Jack Stone. Photo by Amos Ben Gershom GPO via Flickr.