Azmi Bishara, director-general of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies, has warned that former U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal for the forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza could become a reality, though it is not inevitable. He argued that the most effective response to such plans is to ensure that Gaza becomes a viable and livable place.
In an interview with Al-Araby TV on Sunday evening from Lusail, Qatar, Bishara stated that Trump’s rhetoric could gain credibility due to the weakness of the Arab states. He cautioned that the former U.S. president would not relent unless faced with a decisive Arab response. Bishara expressed confidence that the U.S.-Israeli escalation against the region is a direct consequence of Arab leaders’ passive stance on the war in Gaza.
On Syria’s transitional phase Bishara asserted that establishing full and equal citizenship would eliminate the need for rhetoric around minority protection. However, he voiced doubts about Syria’s trajectory toward a liberal democracy and expressed concerns about the future of political freedoms in the country.
Trump’s proposal
Bishara criticized Trump’s ideas on forcibly relocating Palestinians as highly provocative and deeply troubling. Although these ideas have not yet been formalized into an official policy, he cautioned that they could easily evolve into a concrete plan, much like Israeli policies of the past. He noted that Trump’s statements have rekindled Israeli memories of the mass expulsions of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967. He also cited a poll indicating that a majority of Israelis support Trump’s proposal regarding Palestinians in Gaza.
Bishara warned that the search for alternative host countries for Palestinians could shift into an effort to encourage their migration—individually and collectively—rather than recognizing their national rights. He argued that the most effective response is to ensure that leaving Gaza does not become an unavoidable choice by prioritizing reconstruction efforts. He noted that the cost of rebuilding Gaza would be a fraction of the investments Trump has demanded from Arab states, which he described as unjustified, especially given Iran’s current weakened state.
Bishara remains convinced that Trump’s proposal is not a fair accompli, stating that, as a businessman, Trump could be persuaded of its failure if Arab states take concrete action rather than merely issuing statements.
An ‘Arab Marshall Plan’ for Gaza
Bishara emphasized that Arab nations must not only allocate funds for reconstruction but also support Palestinian legal action against Israel for war-related damages. He argued that the passive or complicit stance of certain Arab governments during the war on Gaza created the conditions that allowed Trump to make such statements.
He suggested that the inaction of Arab states encouraged U.S. officials to believe that such proposals could be advanced without consequences. Bishara stressed that Trump would not abandon his plan unless confronted with a practical Arab response—one that involves rebuilding Gaza and strengthening Palestinian resilience by opening the territory’s border with Egypt. He clarified that this should not facilitate migration but rather ensure the entry of essential supplies without waiting for Israeli approval. He emphasized that Egypt, as a major regional power, does not require Israeli permission to send caravans and tents into Gaza and asserted that Israel would not declare war on Egypt for doing so.
Bishara also pointed to the upcoming Arab League summit in Cairo on 27 February as a historic opportunity to shift public perceptions of Arab summits, which are often seen as ineffective. He urged Arab leaders to adopt resolutions that would make Gaza habitable again, proposing an “Arab Marshall Plan” for its reconstruction. Furthermore, he argued that such a summit could play a critical role in unifying Palestinian factions and reorganizing the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), rather than simply mediating between rival Palestinian parties. He warned that if Palestinian factions fail to unite under the current circumstances, the prospect of a viable national solution will diminish even further.
Halting concessions on the Arab Peace Initiative
Asked about U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s call for those opposing Trump’s plan to present alternatives, Bishara responded that the Arab world had already proposed a solution in 2002 through the Arab Peace Initiative. The initiative called for a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, the return of refugees, and Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Golan Heights in exchange for Arab states recognizing and normalizing relations with Israel. However, Bishara noted that instead of upholding this initiative, Arab governments have progressively abandoned it by engaging in unilateral normalization with Israel.
He argued that rather than offering further concessions, Arab nations should reverse this trend and halt normalization efforts that do not yield reciprocal commitments from Israel.
Could Trump’s proposal lead to another war in Gaza?
Bishara dismissed the likelihood of Israel launching another war on Gaza solely in response to Trump’s displacement proposal. He suggested that Trump himself would likely avoid advocating for renewed conflict, recognizing that previous military operations had already exhausted their strategic objectives.
However, he acknowledged concerns that displacement policies could extend to the West Bank. He noted that since 1967, migration from the West Bank has steadily increased, but Palestinians have continued to resist. He pointed out that for Jordan, this is a strategic issue, suggesting that the kingdom could close its borders if faced with a large-scale influx of displaced Palestinians.
Bishara warned that the situation in the West Bank is deteriorating further, as Israel transitions from turning settlements into isolated enclaves to transforming Palestinian towns and villages into fragmented cantons within their own land. He argued that Israel is systematically making life unbearable for Palestinians through displacement, movement restrictions, and military checkpoints.
Syria’s transition and the risk of premature elections
In the second part of his interview, Bishara discussed Syria’s transitional phase. He cautioned against rushing into elections before the state stabilizes and before a constitutional framework is established, pointing to Libya’s post-conflict struggles as a warning.
He stressed that any meaningful transition in Syria must safeguard political freedoms and human rights, both under the transitional government and in the final constitutional framework. Expressing concerns over Syria’s future, Bishara stated, “I am not certain that Syrians are moving toward a liberal democratic system.”
Regarding the structure of a post-war government, Bishara predicted that a pluralistic administration would be established, emphasizing equal citizenship and the rule of law. He asserted that ensuring full equality for all citizens would render minority-protection rhetoric obsolete and called for the creation of a legislative body to draft an interim constitutional declaration.
He also emphasized the need for transitional justice mechanisms, including legal measures to prosecute major crimes committed by the regime while facilitating reconciliation to prevent cycles of revenge. He advised distinguishing between the regime and the state, arguing that while Syria’s bureaucracy has been severely damaged, maintaining functional institutions is crucial for stability.
On Syria’s military, Bishara acknowledged that dissolving the army was a mistake but stressed the importance of rapidly rebuilding a new military structure.
Avoiding the cult of personality
Reflecting on Syria’s political culture, Bishara highlighted the dangers of replacing one form of political fanaticism with another. He urged Syrians to avoid developing new personality cults, citing President Ahmed al-Sharaa as a key leader in the fight against ISIS and in governing Idlib. However, Bishara insisted that even influential figures should remain subject to scrutiny, stating, “No one is above criticism, and Ahmad Al-Sharaa is not Bashar Al-Assad.”
He concluded by asserting that while the international community broadly supports a stable transition in Syria, Israel remains uniquely interested in dividing the country and establishing influence over various ethnic and sectarian groups.
