February 06, 2025
Nasser Kandil
• The term hypothetical plan in describing U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal to forcibly displace Gaza’s population and place Gaza under long-term American control suggests that the plan lacks any practical means of execution. It offers no answer to the question of who would secure the consent of Gaza’s residents, who have made it clear that they refuse to abandon their homeland. Nor does it outline a mechanism for forcibly removing them – even through a U.S. military campaign – especially given that Israel’s war, despite employing all the weapons and bombs America provided, has failed to achieve that objective. Moreover, the nations Trump addressed in his speech have already rejected his calls to accept displaced Gazans. But was this hypothetical plan put forward only to fade away due to its lack of an implementation mechanism, or does it serve a strategic function based on a studied dynamic?
• It can be stated with confidence that Gaza’s people will not be displaced, and any talk of a U.S. military campaign to enforce such displacement is pure fantasy. Such a campaign is doomed to failure – it would ignite the entire region, put American bases and interests at risk, and recreate the Red Sea confrontation with Yemen, with all its repercussions on strategic waterways, oil markets, and global trade. Additionally, such an operation would require internal U.S. preparations and a shift in the priorities of a second Trump administration, which is focused on economic recovery and avoiding new wars. Trump is known for climbing down from political trees when faced with obstacles, as seen in his dealings with Panama, Mexico, and Canada. Despite his attempts to frame failures as achievements, he ultimately abandoned the idea of annexing Canada, settling instead for deploying border guards to combat smuggling. He also dropped the goal of reclaiming the Panama Canal, opting instead for military base privileges. Likewise, his stance on Mexico no longer hinges on its acceptance of deported migrants but merely on cooperation in border security.
• The primary objective of Trump’s hypothetical plan is to rescue Israel from a series of existential threats – without actually needing to implement the plan. Simply raising the prospect of displacing Gaza’s population, followed by annexing the West Bank, shifts the entire narrative surrounding the war. Israel’s failed attempt to eliminate the Palestinian cause through military force, whether by imposing occupation, enforcing displacement, or crushing resistance, had led to renewed discussions of a Palestinian state, which the Trump administration had previously sought to trade for Saudi-Israeli normalisation. Now, the focus has shifted: instead of a Palestinian state, the debate is about Gaza’s displacement and the annexation of the West Bank. This provides Israel with its first lifeline.
• From this lifeline, a second lifeline emerges – preventing internal Israeli fragmentation over the question of a Palestinian state, a crisis that has been widely speculated to be pushing Israel toward civil war. These two lifelines by extension provide the third: shielding Benjamin Netanyahu’s government from collapse.
• The second objective of Trump’s plan is hardly concealed – it appears to be a calculated and provocative strategy, presenting a U.S.-backed vision for resolving the conflict. It seems designed to serve as a tool for blackmail and exerting pressure, potentially to extract alternatives to the establishment of a Palestinian state. These alternatives would secure Israeli-American ambitions in Gaza and the West Bank, such as an international-Arab administration for Gaza and legitimisation of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. It paves the way for Saudi-Israeli normalisation without the precondition of a Palestinian state. In this way, simply withdrawing the displacement proposal from discussion would itself be framed as a significant concession, regardless of what alternative is ultimately accepted or at what cost.
• A precedent that sheds light on this strategy is UN Security Council Resolution 1559, passed in 2004. It was, at the time, a hypothetical plan with no enforcement mechanism, calling for Syria’s withdrawal from Lebanon and the disbanding of militias – aimed at targeting Hezbollah’s armed wing – without providing the means to achieve these grand objectives. Yet, soon after, the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri served as the plan’s execution mechanism, leading to Syria’s withdrawal and paving the way for an international tribunal that later accused Hezbollah of the killing.
Thus, Trump’s hypothetical plan should not be dismissed. Its implementation mechanisms may yet emerge – perhaps through engineered crises or destabilising events capable of triggering unforeseen upheavals.
• While Trump’s plan presents a significant challenge to the region, it also offers a major opportunity. Arab and Muslim nations that once hoped to foster U.S.-Arab cooperation under the framework of a Palestinian state in exchange for normalisation now face a stark reality: the pursuit of a Greater Israel, achieved at the expense of their regional standing and leadership in the Palestinian cause. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority, which accepted the role of security enforcer for the occupation, now faces the threat of dissolution.
This moment presents an opening: Arab and Muslim nations can embrace Gaza, launch reconstruction efforts under a unified Palestinian government – an outcome outlined in the Beijing Agreement between Fatah, Hamas, and other factions – and open the Rafah crossing while declaring an end to the siege by land, sea, and air, without awaiting Israeli approval. With Arab and Islamic financial backing, Egypt and Jordan can be assured of economic stability despite U.S. aid threats. Palestinian national unity becomes more attainable, as does broader Arab-Islamic cooperation to establish a Palestinian state starting from Gaza, securing widespread international recognition.
