Donald Trump’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been characterized by a volatile mix of initial engagement followed by disengagement and actions that appear to favor the Israeli right wing. His initial declaration of “unleashing hell” if a ceasefire wasn’t reached prior to his inauguration seemed to pressure Hamas into agreeing to a truce. This ceasefire led to the release of hostages, the delivery of aid to Gaza, and the return of displaced people to their homes. However, Trump’s subsequent pronouncements and actions paint a less hopeful picture for the future of the peace process and the well-being of Palestinians.
Despite the initial success of the ceasefire, Trump quickly distanced himself from the conflict, declaring it ”not our war” and expressing skepticism about the truce’s longevity. This disengagement coincided with decisions that fueled tensions and undermined the prospects for a lasting peace. He lifted restrictions on powerful bombs that the Biden administration had imposed on Israel and removed sanctions against extremist Israeli settlers on the West Bank. These actions emboldened the settlers, who responded by setting fire to Palestinian villages in protest against the very ceasefire Trump had seemingly championed.
The removal of sanctions against extremist settlers, coupled with Trump’s public musing about emptying Gaza and relocating its population to Egypt and Jordan, reveals a concerning alignment with the Israeli far-right. These groups openly advocate for the annexation of large swathes of the West Bank and a resumption of the war in Gaza. Trump’s actions and rhetoric not only legitimize these extremist views but also embolden figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir, the former Israeli police minister who welcomed Trump’s suggestion of population transfer.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, finds himself in a delicate position. While he may be personally inclined towards some of the far-right’s positions, he is also politically reliant on their support. His acceptance of the initial ceasefire likely stemmed from a desire to score points with the new US president. Trump’s threat, while directed at Hamas, also served as a signal to Netanyahu of his eagerness to showcase a peaceful resolution of the conflict upon taking office. However, Netanyahu’s continued reliance on the far-right elements within his coalition makes a sustained peace increasingly difficult.
The question remains whether Trump’s initial engagement was merely a performative act for his inauguration or if he genuinely intends to contribute to a lasting peace. His subsequent actions suggest the former. There is no indication of a commitment to rebuilding Gaza, engaging with the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank as a counterpoint to Hamas, or applying pressure on Netanyahu to pursue a more moderate course. Instead, his actions – lifting restrictions on bombs, removing sanctions on extremist settlers, and entertaining the notion of population transfer – all point to a disregard for the complexities of the conflict and the needs of the Palestinian population.
This approach bodes ill not only for the Palestinians but also for Israelis who understand that lasting security cannot be achieved through violence alone. By aligning himself with the Israeli far-right and dismissing the need for a more nuanced approach to the conflict, Trump is jeopardizing the fragile ceasefire and exacerbating the existing tensions. His actions offer little hope for a peaceful resolution and instead pave the way for further conflict and instability in the region. The long-term consequences of his disengagement and his embrace of extremist views could be devastating for all involved.
