Trump's Unwavering Loyalty to Israel

cs_opinion_img
Trump's core goal, past and present, has been to create a "solution" for Israel, ensuring its security and ending the Palestinian threat.
February 7, 2025
author_image
Click Register
Register
Try Premium Member
for Free with a 7-Day Trial
Click Register
Register
Try Premium Member for Free with a 7-Day Trial

After attributing the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas as “his achievement,” Trump made another shocking statement on January 25, announcing his intention to “clear out” Gaza. Trump stated that this action could be temporary or long-term; in his view, it would aid in resolving the recurring Israeli-Gaza conflict.
Trump’s proposal has found echoes in Israel, with figures like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich expressing support. However, Arab stakeholders are not as receptive, with countries like Jordan and Egypt firmly opposing the plan.
Trump’s plan is evidently not easy to execute, yet given his prior term’s style, such proposals are not surprising.

The Call for Israel to “Return”

Looking back, Trump is certainly not the first politician to propose “clearing out Gaza.” Historical precedents exist, such as the “Nakba” of 1948 and the “Naksa” of 1967. The former led over 750,000 Palestinians to flee their homes, while the latter forced over 280,000 Palestinians to escape from Gaza and the West Bank to Egypt and Jordan.
These events undeniably form the foundation of Israel’s establishment and represent scars in Palestinian national narrative. The “key” has thus become a significant symbol in Arab artistic creations, metaphorically linking the displaced nation’s longing for their homes despite many areas being swallowed by Israeli settlements.
After the outbreak of war following the 2023 “Aqsa Flood Operations,” the Israeli-Palestinian narrative reaction resurfaced: due to the Israeli military’s initial advance into North Gaza, many Palestinians fled southward in panic, prompting discussions of a “Nakba 2.0.” Meanwhile, within Israel’s right-wing community eager for revenge, calls to “return” to Gaza are increasingly vocal, framing Trump’s “clear out” proposal today.
Of course, this notion of returning to Gaza is not without historical basis. After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel successfully occupied the Gaza Strip and began establishing the first settlement in 1970, continuing to expand both size and population until reaching nearly 7,000 people by 2001. However, following the outbreak of the “Second Intifada” in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed withdrawing from Gaza in 2003 to ease international pressure and placate the Palestinians. Unsurprisingly, this proposal was warmly welcomed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s left, but met with severe opposition from Sharon’s Likud Party, including Finance Minister Netanyahu at the time.                                                                                                
Despite the rising opposition, Sharon successfully passed the disengagement plan law in the Israeli parliament in February 2005, and the withdrawal process was gradually carried out from August, officially completing in September.
In terms of results, Israel dismantled 21 Gaza settlements and relocated over 8,000 Jewish settlers, with the Israeli military withdrawing from Gaza to redeploy along the border. However, throughout the process, the withdrawal never garnered overwhelming consensus internally in Israel. Some settlers repeated resistance, two extreme right-wing individuals committed self-immolation in fury, and Netanyahu resigned from the Sharon government in strong protest.
Over the years, as Israeli settlements continued to infiltrate the West Bank, calls for a “return to Gaza” continually gained momentum.
Certainly, within Israel, these voices aren’t without criticism. Even Netanyahu himself has emphasized multiple times that Israel is not prepared to govern post-war Gaza or rebuild Gaza settlements.
Yet, as previously mentioned, Netanyahu hesitates because “clearing out” Gaza is by no means easy; apart from internal public criticism within Israel, a more critical factor is the surrounding Arab countries’ refusal to cooperate, especially Jordan and Egypt.
Clearly, whether Egypt or Jordan, both countries foresee the accompanying risks of accepting a large influx of refugees, whether through past experience or as a preemptive measure. Observations show that from the beginning of this round of the Gaza war, Egypt and Jordan have repeatedly emphasized they will not accept refugees on a large scale, a stance they’re not assuming merely in recent years.

What is Trump Thinking

Returning to the roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, amid years of stagnation over a “two-state solution,” international proposals surfaced, offering a so-called “three-state solution.” This would abandon the prerequisite of Palestinian statehood, granting control of the West Bank to Jordan, control of the Gaza Strip to Egypt, and providing Palestinians in these territories with each country’s citizenship, leaving only Israel, Jordan, and Egypt standing, with no so-called Palestinian state.

This proposal not only resurrects the pre-1967 scenario but also reinforces Palestinian division. Since Hamas expelled Fatah from Gaza in 2007, Palestine politically split into two entities, with Hamas controlling Gaza and the Palestinian Authority governing the West Bank. Despite mediation efforts by major powers, unity remains unachievable to this day. This division is a huge irony to the “two-state solution”: Palestine hasn’t even succeeded in founding a state before splitting into two.
Moreover, the “three-state solution” shifts the responsibility and externalizes the problem. Egypt and Jordan, the first Arab countries to establish diplomatic ties with Israel and factual neighbors, are expected to contain armed conflicts in cooperation with Israel, effectively transferring the Palestinian problem upon themselves while allowing Israel to thrive in peace.
Certainly, these proposals, which are significantly advantageous to Israel, cannot easily be accepted by Egypt and Jordan. Though voices desiring territorial gain exist within both countries, they are countered by concerns over “granting all Palestinians citizenship.” Especially in Jordan, government opposition is notably strong, further compounded by Israeli settlement infiltration massively into the West Bank over recent years, eroding the practical basis of a “three-state solution.”
However, post-Trump’s ascension to power, policies explicitly favorable to Israel continue to manifest unchecked, prominently showcased in both his last administration’s “Peace Plan” (Trump Peace Plan, also known as the “Deal of the Century”) and the newly proposed “clear out” of Gaza immediately upon resuming office. Trump’s core objective centers around crafting “solutions” tailored for Israel, ultimately ensuring Israeli security and eradicating threats from Palestine.

Before unveiling the “Peace Plan” vision in January 2020, Trump already initiated several “name rectification for Israel” components: in December 2017, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, in 2018 ceasing funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), in March 2019 recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and in November 2019 abandoning the long-held U.S. policy of 40 years denouncing West Bank Jewish settlements as inconsistent with international law.
Ultimately, the “Peace Plan” elucidated Trump’s “ideal vision”: Palestine may establish a “state with limited sovereignty,” with its capital located in the East Jerusalem suburbs, to be realized four years post-implementation. Israel would control the borders, airspace, electromagnetic spectrum, foreign policy, and security of the “State of Palestine.” Palestinians must disarm all militants in the Gaza Strip, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and affiliated groups, and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Without Israeli consent, the “State of Palestine” cannot attempt to join any international organizations. Meeting these standards will earn U.S. recognition of “Palestine,” although what meets the standards is primarily defined by Israel and the U.S.
Evidently, Trump’s “Peace Plan” significantly deviates from the UN’s version of the “two-state solution,” functioning instead as a smokescreen permitting Israel to advance annexation; even if a “State of Palestine” were eventually established, its condition significantly resembles a colonial subjugation under Israeli dominance.
Nevertheless, these contentions soon subsided as Trump was defeated in the election, and Netanyahu’s coalition partner Gantz opposed annexing the West Bank, ultimately leading the “Peace Plan” to fade away amidst clamors. Yet, few anticipated that Trump would propose “clearing out Gaza” four years later.
From a political strategy perspective, “clearing out Gaza” embodies a variant of the “three-state solution,” seeking to outsource the Palestinian issue to Jordan and Egypt. Yet at its core, “clearing out Gaza” aligns with the “Peace Plan”: the ultimate aim remains facilitating Jewish settlement while obstructing Palestinian statehood.
Given current robust rejections from Egypt and Jordan, this session’s “clearing out Gaza” may also stall like the prior “Peace Plan,” arousing substantial global discourse yet stanching practical movement. Yet, the fact that such once-fringe extreme-right rhetoric is now publicly proposed by a U.S. president as a “serious” measure unforgivingly casts the Palestinian future in bleak shadows: ethnic cleansing may not be fully executed, but ethnic oppression becomes the ugly norm. Continually confined Palestinians’ resistance seems to merely shift the gap, not further a dream of statehood.

Editor: Zhongxiaowen

Share This Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comment
Cancel