Photo credit: www.theguardian.com

Trump’s Approach to Gaza: Navigating Israeli Strategies and Diplomatic Aspirations

Former President Donald Trump’s approach to the Israeli government reflects a significant tension with his self-perception as a skilled dealmaker. Despite the seemingly absurd idea that he seeks a Nobel Peace Prize, his ambitions could inadvertently shine a light on the rights and safety of Palestinians in Gaza.

Currently, Trump appears to support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aggressive strategy against Hamas, aiming to bring the militant group to its knees. Recently, Netanyahu adopted a tactic of intensifying attacks on Gaza, intending to pressure Hamas into both releasing hostages and dismantling its military capabilities. Within a short span, nearly 600 Palestinians lost their lives due to renewed Israeli bombings.

The expectations surrounding the second phase of the recent ceasefire were high, initially intending to facilitate the release of the last remaining hostages from Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. However, the Israeli government unilaterally adjusted the conditions, insisting on hostages’ release and Hamas’s dismantling without reciprocating with a ceasefire, leading Hamas to refuse such an unfair ultimatum.

Hamas’s concerns are not unfounded. The Israeli government’s ongoing assaults seem less about negotiating their demands and more about pursuing a long-desired goal of expelling Palestinian civilians from Gaza—a vision espoused by the far-right factions within Israel. Encouragingly, the Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, has even hinted at plans to annex parts of Gaza, while Netanyahu is rumored to be orchestrating a larger ground invasion. With Trump’s support of the forced deportation of 2 million Palestinians—a grave violation of humanitarian law—Netanyahu may feel emboldened to pursue such a heartless agenda.

Amidst this turmoil, Itamar Ben-Gvir, an extremist member of Netanyahu’s coalition, has reinstated his role as police minister, further demonstrating the shift in power dynamics since the ceasefire’s collapse. Ben-Gvir, known for his unrestrained advocacy for resolving the Gaza issue, openly supports strategies aimed at eliminating Palestinian presence from the area, with implications that such violence could extend to the West Bank as well.

Given these dynamics, the likelihood of a meaningful deal with Hamas remains bleak. The question arises: why would Hamas concede if it results in a permanent disconnect from their homeland?

Both Netanyahu and Trump may wrongly assume that through overwhelming military action, they can force Hamas to surrender. Historically, such strategies have rarely led to effective resolution, as many hostages have been released through dialogue rather than military pressure. Trump has even restarted the supply of powerful munitions that had previously been curtailed.

With the potential for war crimes charges looming, particularly for the indiscriminate bombings, Trump’s stakes are high. He risks international legal complications that could impede his political mobility, akin to challenges faced by leaders like Vladimir Putin when abroad.

Hamas’s resilience in the face of aggression is notable, as is the strong stance of neighboring Arab nations rejecting any repetition of the catastrophic displacement witnessed in 1948. The central issue remains whether Trump can grasp that a negotiated settlement, not a forced surrender, is the most effective resolution to the crisis unfolding in Gaza.

At present, Trump’s alignment with Israel appears steadfast. However, his history suggests flexibility, pivoting towards self-interest if it serves his ambitions. This could tie back to his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize. Should he wish to foster a reputation as a consummate negotiator, supporting the cessation of hostilities would serve better than complicity in further conflicts.

Trump retains the power to influence Netanyahu toward a less aggressive stance. Israel’s reliance on US military aid provides an opportunity for Trump to assert pressure where Biden’s appeals have fallen short, as bipartisan support within the Republican Party has shielded Netanyahu from accountability. Given Trump’s current dominance over the Republican landscape, exercising this leverage could redirect Israeli policy.

The path forward might resemble a two-state solution, ideally positioning an Israeli and Palestinian state as peaceful neighbors. Alternatives that endorse equal rights or sustain occupations would likely face broad rejection. In this light, high-profile figures like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman have indicated they will not embrace normalization with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state, highlighting regional dynamics in the pursuit of stability.

While it may seem ludicrous to consider Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize, history showcases that unexpected decisions have occurred before. Past recipients have navigated controversial legacies yet still influenced groundbreaking agreements. A significant transformation in Trump’s approach could yield unexpected dividends for peace in the region.

Ultimately, the current climate highlights the urgency for the international community to engage in dialogue that prioritizes humane solutions and recognizes the potential for political ambitions to motivate constructive action, even from unlikely sources.

Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch (1993-2022), is a visiting professor at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs. His book, Righting Wrongs, was recently published by Knopf and Allen Lane.

Source
www.theguardian.com