Last week, the Arab League met in Cairo to issue a formal rejection of US President Donald Trump’s proposal to forcibly remove Palestinians from Gaza.
The summit – attended by key US allies such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar – was a decisive rebuke of Trump’s vision to “take over” Gaza and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East”.
But such a cold-hearted plan, concocted by an imperialist mindset, depends on the large-scale transfer of Gaza’s population – a feat that even a fierce 15-month genocidal war, waged by the destructive Israeli killing machine, failed to achieve.
Moreover, it remains untenable without the cooperation of neighbouring Arab states, which view the mass expulsion of Palestinians as a direct threat to their stability.
Indeed, less than a month into his second term, Trump’s preposterous declaration marked a rapid escalation – one that could be interpreted in several ways.
‘Ludicrous declaration’
One possibility is taking the demand at face value, derived from a belief that the Palestinians have been defeated and that the Arab states are in such a state of weakness and dependency that they cannot stop this blatant disregard for their rights, sovereignty, or agency.
His announcement could also be an attempt to reward some of his biggest campaign donors and benefactors.
During his presidential run, Trump received hundreds of millions of dollars from right-wing Zionists, including billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman and casino magnate Miriam Adelson, one of the wealthiest women in the world.
The latter gave Trump $100m in exchange for his support of Israel’s most extreme policies, just as he did in 2017 when he recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocated the US embassy there.
Nevertheless, many experts remain unsure whether to take this absurd proposal seriously, given Trump’s repeated breaches of common sense and diplomatic protocol since his election victory.
From his demand that Denmark hand over Greenland to the US, to his call for Canada to become the 51st state, or his attempt to strong-arm Panama into relinquishing control of the Panama Canal, his bombastic rhetoric is widely considered beyond the realm of a head of state – let alone the leader of a great world power.
Yet not only did he utter such a ludicrous declaration on Gaza weeks ago, but he has also since doubled down on it.
Alternatively, some believe that Trump’s announcement – made during Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Washington – may have been an attempt to foil the Israeli prime minister’s efforts to secure a green light to resume his genocidal war.
Indeed, Trump’s position even surprised many within the administration, as it had not been discussed prior to its pronouncement.
In this analysis, Trump reasoned that if the goal of resuming the war was to dislodge Hamas from Gaza, then his proposal offered not only to expel Hamas but also the entire Palestinian population.
Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump had called on Netanyahu to “finish the job” in Gaza. Yet the Zionist regime had failed to accomplish this according to its own stated goals. Despite 15 months of a brutal war of extermination, waged against the resistance and the defenceless Palestinian people, it had not succeeded.
According to this reading, Trump has a long and extensive domestic and international agenda and did not want to inherit a meaningless war with little strategic value that would also derail his ambitious programme.
Bailing out Netanyahu
Another pragmatic reading is that Trump is taking a page from his own playbook as a long-time real estate tycoon and author of the bestseller The Art of the Deal.
In the book, he states that a successful negotiator must start with a maximalist position that scares the other party into making concessions before negotiations even begin. In this instance, Trump aims to achieve through political pressure what Israel could not accomplish militarily over 470 days of a vicious, destructive war.
Israel’s war had three primary objectives: 1) the release of Israeli captives held by Hamas and other resistance groups without the need to release thousands of Palestinian prisoners; 2) the elimination of Hamas and other resistance groups as military entities; and 3) the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza.
Since none of these objectives were achieved, and as a war of attrition ensued for months – costing the Israeli regime thousands of casualties – Israel was ultimately forced to accept a plan incorporating all of Hamas’s objectives.
The plan, which had been on the table since at least last May, was repeatedly rejected by Israeli officials but reluctantly signed in January under pressure from Trump.
It calls for a three-stage process, each phase lasting 42 days, culminating in the release of all Israeli captives, dead or alive, in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including around 600 serving life sentences.
Additionally, the agreement, which took effect on 19 January, mandated a permanent ceasefire after the second phase, the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the delivery of massive humanitarian aid, including food, water, fuel, tents, and medical supplies. It also outlined a genuine plan for Gaza’s reconstruction within five years.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu is under immense pressure – both from the Trump administration, which seeks at least a temporary pause to recover hostages, and from his extremist right-wing partners, who demand the war’s continuation.
Itamar Ben Gvir, who served as Israel’s minister of national security, quit the government, reducing Netanyahu’s majority in the Knesset, while Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened to leave the coalition if Israel proceeded with the second phase of the ceasefire plan, which would consequently end Netanyahu’s government.
Amid these convoluted realities, Trump sought to bail out Netanyahu while putting Arab regimes on notice, particularly Jordan and Egypt, by calling on them to accept and absorb all Palestinians from Gaza.
If they refused, he insisted they must propose an alternative plan that aligns with his real objectives: disarming Hamas and removing it from Gaza.
‘Dangerous precedent’
However, such a proposition threatens to destabilise not only these countries but the entire regional order.
Egypt, for instance, has a delicate peace agreement with Israel. Transferring a million Palestinians from Gaza to the Sinai may relieve Israel of its obligations as an occupying power, but it would create serious security and social challenges for the Egyptian regime. The Egyptian army, the country’s most powerful institution, is unwilling to manage this crisis, as Palestinians would resist forced displacement.
Similarly, Jordan knows that accepting Palestinians from Gaza would set a dangerous precedent, making it only a matter of time before Israel forcibly transfers the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank across the Jordan River.
This would pose an existential threat to the Hashemite Kingdom, endangering its delicate demographic balance. And thus, Jordan is fiercely against this proposal because it threatens its survival and could unravel the fragile stability of the kingdom itself.
Therefore, in order to counter Trump’s outlandish proposal, America’s Arab allies, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, held an emergency summit in late February in Saudi Arabia and agreed upon a detailed plan for Gaza’s future. Even the Palestinian Authority was excluded from this meeting.
This informal meeting was followed by a formal Arab League session in Cairo on 4 March, which issued an official statement rejecting Trump’s Gaza displacement proposal outright. Instead, it offered a roadmap for Gaza’s rehabilitation and reconstruction.
The final communique called for the immediate implementation of the ceasefire agreement’s second and third phases, including the complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza and the large-scale resumption of humanitarian aid to its suffering population.
It also demanded a lifting of the siege on Gaza and reaffirmed the need for a political resolution within the two-state paradigm.
Reconstruction plan
As for the Israeli and American demand to remove Hamas from power in Gaza, the Arab plan adopted the Egyptian proposal to create a commission of technocrats to manage Gaza for a six-month interim period under the auspices of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
The Egyptians had negotiated this proposal weeks earlier with several Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Fatah.
Since Israel rejected the PA’s return to Gaza, the plan proposed a period of rehabilitation and reforms to be adopted by the PA, including the training of its forces by Egypt and Jordan, after which it would assume responsibility for Gaza’s security.
The issue of disarming Hamas – an idea that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other resistance groups refuse to even discuss – was addressed only vaguely in the final communique. The document proposed placing all weapons under a single authority, presumably the PA, effectively nullifying the resistance, as the PLO and PA renounced armed struggle under the 1993 Oslo Accords.
The statement also called for a UN Security Council resolution to authorise an international peacekeeping force in Gaza – a proposal firmly rejected by Hamas and other resistance groups. Hamas and Islamic Jihad spokespersons stated that any foreign troops in Gaza would be considered an occupying force and treated as such.
Still, for many analysts, one of the most striking aspects of the Arab League’s proposal was the publication of a 91-page reconstruction plan for Gaza.
The document provided a remarkable level of detail on how Gaza would be rebuilt and rehabilitated, outlining a three-phase plan over five years.
The first six-month phase would focus on settling displaced Palestinians in temporary housing such as tents and caravans in seven designated areas.
The second and third phases, lasting three and two and a half years respectively, would focus on full-scale infrastructure development, including schools, universities, hospitals, roads, electricity plants, desalination facilities, and residential housing of varying densities.
The plan also included markets, government buildings, parks, hotels, tourist sites, and industrial zones. This level of detail, complete with maps, served as a direct refutation of Trump’s claim that displacement was necessary for Gaza’s reconstruction.
The reconstruction plan estimated the total cost at $53bn, with $3bn allocated for the first phase, $30bn for the second, and $20bn for the third. The document also called for an international donor conference to be convened soon in Cairo.
Competing interests
In a game of cards, players try to conceal their hands in the hope of outplaying their opponents. But in this geopolitical game, the various actors are laying their cards on the table.
The Israelis and their American allies seek to expel the Palestinians from Gaza – an elusive goal that has failed despite 15 months of genocide waged by Israel.
So, how does Trump intend to achieve it? He has ruled out using force, while his veiled threats to Arab regimes have been ignored as they see his demands as a threat to their own survival.
Though Arab regimes do not want a direct confrontation with Trump, they are equally unwilling to dig their own graves. They hope to pique his interest through arms and commercial deals or by offering him other political victories, such as a normalisation pact, akin to the Abraham Accords.
In their statement, they even dangled the prospect of recognising and normalising ties with the Zionist state, provided there is a viable path – though not necessarily an immediate implementation – towards a two-state political settlement.
Conversely, the current composition of the Zionist regime believes that with Trump in the White House and surrounded by the most Zionist and messianic administration in history, it may be able to achieve its maximalist political objectives.
These include eradicating resistance movements in the region and expelling as many Palestinians as possible to resolve its demographic problem and fabricate a Jewish majority – all while continuing to claim itself a democracy in a Greater Israel.
It further seeks to incapacitate Iran’s nuclear programme, force normalisation deals on Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-majority states, restore its lost deterrence and cement its regional hegemony – a staggering list of ambitions.
Inevitable defeat
If Netanyahu and his Zionist allies in the US insist on pursuing this ruthless campaign, they will have to persuade Trump to prioritise their belligerent objectives.
However, in his final term, he has little time to dismantle what he considers the US deep state – an entity he views as obstructing his domestic and international agenda.
Trump’s threats, hubris, and bombastic rhetoric will not compel others to bow to his wishes. If he resorts to hard power in Gaza, he will face fierce resistance – not only from traditional opponents of American policy in the region but also from pro-American regimes that view his pronouncements as dangerously destabilising.
These dynamics will inevitably derail Trump’s broader ambitions to reshape American society and the international order under his so-called “America First” agenda.
Like his predecessors, he will find that attempts to reshape geopolitical realities in the region through the barrel of a gun will only end in utter failure.
And if The Art of the Deal has taught us anything, it is that there is nothing Trump detests more than the sting of failure and the taste of defeat.
