Making sense of Trump on Gaza

How do we make sense of President Trump’s announcement that the United States would take over Gaza, and its inhabitants should move elsewhere?

Trump’s defenders claim this is an example of his strategy of making extraordinary demands in order to move towards an agreement on his terms. Trump, after all, boasts that he is the greatest dealmaker of all times.

It is also the case that Trump’s announcement shook up the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians in ways that few foresaw. Already Administration spokespeople are walking it back: “That does not mean boots on the ground in Gaza. That does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort.” said his Press Secretary.

But the praise Benjamin Netanyahu lavished on Trump after they met in what was remarkably the first visit of a head of government to Washington since the Inauguration suggests this may be more than a thought bubble. Were Trump to follow through this would give Netanyahu the opportunity to claim the relentless war on Hamas had succeeded.

Netanyahu is correct in saying Trump has been more supportive of Israel than any previous US President. Even if the Gaza proposal is a fantasy it is matched by unlimited promises of military support, increased hostility to Iran and a green light for Israeli military operations.

It is probably correct that Trump would like to be seen as a peace maker. Never underestimate his long memory for revenge and his hatred of Barack Obama. How better to prove himself than by winning a Nobel Peace Prize, thus matching Obama’s rather premature win in 2009?

But more important than the desire for recognition—or even for real estate possibilities—is Trump’s alignment with the most hawkish elements of the Israeli lobby in the United States. This was apparent in his first term, when he moved the American embassy to Jerusalem, as step only taken by only four other countries, including, rather oddly, Papua New Guinea.

Trump could claim he furthered Middle Est Peace with the Abraham Accords, which saw recognition of Israel by four Arab. It is likely that fear of Saudi Arabia joining them was a factor behind Hamas’s decision to launch its attacks on October 7^th

One of his first appointments since returning to office was to name former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee, as the new American Ambassador. Huckabee, a right-wing Republican who has tried several times for the party’s presidential nomination, is a strong supporter of the most extreme political positions in Israel.

Like some of Netanyahu’s cabinet, he supports the dispossession of Palestinians from areas they hold to, tenuously, on the West Bank. He has denied the existence of Palestinians and refers to the West Bank, regarded under international law as illegally settled, by the Jewish name of Judea and Samaria.

The strongest supporters of Israel in the United States today include many on the right win of the Republican Party who have worked with like-minded Democrats in a powerful Congressional caucus. While the Democrats are split on their support for Israel, the only division within the Republican Party—which controls both houses of Congress—seems to be between those who deny any claims to Palestinian sovereignty and those who cling to the policy of all previous administrations, namely a two-state solution.

Whatever the realities of Trump’s claims to take over Gaza, it is clear that he has signalled the end to American support for the idea of a genuine Palestinian state, which has been the fig-leaf for all western governments for half a century.

Netanyahu could fly back to Israel secure in the knowledge that there would be no further American pressure to prevent further moves to settle the West Bank and use brute force against any perceived resistance by Palestinians. This has caused problems for Australian politicians, particularly the Liberals who are now torn between their stated policy in support of a two-state solution and their desire to stand with Trump behind Israel.