I’m Palestinian. Here’s why Trump’s Gaza gambit might just work

One of the biggest obstacles to finding a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an overwhelming imbalance in direct international support. Armed with extensive international resources, especially from the United States, Israel has long been able to reject logical solutions while presenting the minimum justifications to placate international sponsors. Over time, this has led to resistance from Palestinians, which has produced an even more radical Israeli position, leading, after the horrific Oct. 7 attack, to the devastating violence of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Now, President Donald Trump’s administration has been called to help Israel out of the jam it finds itself in. Trump has, in classic fashion, delivered bombastic promises of peace and prosperity, much to the delight of Israelis, who have largely embraced his proposals for a mass relocation of Palestinians in Gaza and a U.S. takeover of the embattled strip.

But as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for. Once Washington finds itself more involved in the day-to-day management of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Trump might find that the result that will guarantee peace and tranquility is not necessarily that which Israelis — and certainly the Israeli right — are expecting.

That’s because Trump, who has a history of making grand promises and not fulfilling them, may find that it is easier to create a buffer between Israelis and Palestinians than to organize the displacement of an entire population and redevelopment of an area destroyed to rubble. And that kind of buffer, between a powerful militaristic occupier and a weak but resilient occupied, is exactly what the region needs.

And the U.S. is the ideal party to create that buffer, for two reasons.

First, it can provide what no other state in the world is able to: the security assurances that Israel and the Israeli people badly need. And second, whenever Israelis engage with Palestinians, they use their superior military and political power to insist on exaggerated demands. But when the U.S. is in the room — represented by officials not afraid to deploy their power — a more logical conversation takes place.

Security guarantees from the U.S. could go a long way in removing a major obstacle Israel has continuously presented in justifying its hesitancy about finding a long-term strategy to create a permanent peace solution and a Palestinian state. Past peace ideas have failed because the balance of power was always on the Israeli side, and despite its claims to want peace, Israel has never truly been willing to pay the price of that outcome — land — using security as an excuse. Providing Israelis with an iron-clad guarantee of security, possible with the deployment of U.S. or NATO forces, could finally shift the balance.

Successive U.S. presidents have failed to help Palestinians and Israelis reach peace, because they have refused to take the bold steps needed to act as honest brokers, and rejected the idea of acting as a temporary buffer and an insurer between the occupier and the occupied.

Trump has shown that an excess of restraint will not be his administration’s problem. When months of indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas, with the engagement of former President Joe Biden’s administration, repeatedly failed to produce a ceasefire, the intervention of Trump’s incoming administration brought the deal to fruition. I do not doubt that continued U.S. engagement will also produce agreement on the critical second and third phases of the ceasefire deal, which will involve the release of all remaining hostages in Gaza — dead and alive — and end the 15-month war.

Yes, Trump has proclaimed a vision for the future of the region that is notably free of a Palestinian presence, let alone leadership. But once the leader of the U.S. and his aides roll up their sleeves and begin the nitty gritty process of trying to achieve peace in the Middle East, they will run into a truth that all others who have tried the same have faced, which is that to get anything done in the region, one must apply tough love policies to all sides — not just one.

For Palestinians, like me, inviting this intervention means making a bet: That Trump, once on the ground, will find it more expedient to scale back his plans. The president’s history of bluster — and of making big threats, but strategically accepting much smaller gains — makes that bet worthwhile.

Palestinians have seen in the Israeli settlement enterprise the best proof that Israel is not willing to relinquish land for peace — just the opposite. A shake-up is needed. And Palestinians have previously hoped that an international presence could provide that adjustment: As part of previous peace negotiations, some past Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, have suggested stationing NATO troops in a future Palestinian state to reassure Israel. But those proposals, like so many others in this process, stalled.

If Trump is willing to genuinely engage, in a way that his predecessors were not, it might mean a major breakthrough that will change our region. The Trump administration can end this occupation and can bring peace through security if it wishes, and the world will applaud them if they do.

La source de cet article se trouve sur ce site