February 15, 2025
Nasim Ahmed
Nasim Ahmed
Israel’s war on Gaza has shattered whatever illusions remained about the strength of US hegemony in the Middle East. The essays in a recent study “Debating American Primacy in the Middle East” bring into sharp focus the extent to which the US funded Israeli genocide in Gaza has accelerated global shifts in power, exposing the limits of Washington’s influence and leaving a vacuum that other actors are eagerly filling. The past 16 months, argue the authors, have not only exposed deep fractures in US alliances but also demonstrated the sheer exhaustion of the post-World War II order that once allowed America to dictate the region’s future. What was once an uncontested US-led system is now riddled with challenges from regional and global actors who are increasingly willing to defy American dictates.
According to the study, US primacy in the Middle East has never rested on military force alone. Its dominance was built on a mix of coercion, economic leverage, and the carefully maintained illusion of a liberal international order—one supposedly grounded in rules, institutions and multilateral diplomacy. But Israel’s aggression in Gaza has stripped away this façade, exposing a glaring double standard. The US, which has long positioned itself as a global defender of democracy and human rights, has instead found itself justifying and enabling an ally engaged in actions that violate the very principles it claims to uphold. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that Israel’s actions plausibly constitute genocide has put Washington in a position of unprecedented moral and political isolation. Rather than reassess its stance, the US has blocked ceasefire resolutions at the UN and continued to supply weapons, demonstrating that its commitment to “rules-based order” applies only when it serves American interests.
For decades, Washington’s closest Arab allies — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE — have maintained their alignment with the US in exchange for security guarantees. But, as the study details, this arrangement is becoming harder to sustain. The assault on Gaza has ignited public anger across the Arab world at a level not seen since the early days of the Arab Spring, forcing even the most US-aligned governments to reconsider their positions. Jordan, historically one of America’s most reliable partners, took the extraordinary step of supporting the ICJ case against Israel. Saudi Arabia, which had been moving towards normalising ties with Israel under US mediation, has now been forced to shelve those plans indefinitely. The authors of the study argue that the US, once seen as the key regional power broker, is rapidly losing credibility as a mediator, let alone a hegemon.
One of the most striking points made in the study is the extent to which Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security has transformed from a strategic calculation into an ideological fixation — one that no longer serves even Israel’s interests. Far from ensuring its long-term security, US support has helped push Israel into deeper isolation. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has framed its assault on Gaza as an existential fight, but rather than eliminating Hamas, the war has instead made Gaza a global symbol of Western hypocrisy, strengthened resistance movements across the region and increased instability.
The study also points to the impact on America’s traditional alliances in Europe. While European governments have largely followed Washington’s lead in backing Israel, public opinion has shifted dramatically. The scale of destruction in Gaza has mobilised widespread protests and forced European leaders — many of whom have historically been staunchly pro-Israel — to adopt a more critical tone. This marks a significant break from previous US-European relations. For decades, the transatlantic alliance has been a key pillar of US global primacy, yet the study argues that Washington’s handling of Gaza has shown that it can no longer rely on automatic European backing. The Biden administration’s failure to secure a ceasefire despite months of mounting pressure has exposed the limits of its influence, not just over Israel but over its own allies.
Beyond the immediate diplomatic fallout, the study suggests that the broader consequences of this moment will reshape global power structures. The US dollar’s dominance in global trade and the influence of American-led financial institutions are already being challenged, with countries actively seeking ways to reduce their economic dependence on Washington. The BRICS alliance, which includes China, Russia and key Global South economies, is gaining momentum, with several Middle Eastern states expressing interest in closer ties. The study argues that if US primacy means unconditional support for Israel at any cost, then alternative global alignments will only become more attractive.
What emerges from this analysis is not the immediate collapse of US hegemony, but its gradual and highly visible erosion. The US remains a powerful actor, but the study makes it clear that Washington can no longer dictate terms as it once did. Arab states that were once deeply embedded in the American security architecture are actively diversifying their partnerships, strengthening ties with China, Russia and even Iran. The security arrangements that underpinned US dominance in the region for decades are now being renegotiated, with Washington struggling to keep up.
Perhaps nowhere is this shift more apparent than in the failure of the Abraham Accords to withstand the fallout from Gaza. The accords were designed to cement Israel’s integration into a US-backed regional order, but the ongoing assault has rendered them meaningless. Arab states that had normalised ties with Israel, such as the UAE and Bahrain, now find themselves having to publicly distance themselves from its actions. Saudi Arabia, once the key target for US-led normalisation efforts, has decisively stepped back. The study argues that the belief that Israel could maintain these deals while waging an all-out assault on Gaza was always unrealistic — and the events of the past year have confirmed that the future of the region will not be shaped by US-brokered backroom agreements but by the realities of power on the ground.
The study also highlights the internal impact on Israel itself, arguing that the Gaza assault has had devastating consequences not just for Palestinians but for Israeli democracy. The far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu has used the crisis to push through increasingly authoritarian measures, suppressing dissent, targeting political opponents and further entrenching an anti-democratic state. For years, Israel’s defenders have justified US support by portraying it as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” yet its current trajectory calls that claim into question.
For Palestinians, the study makes clear that the ongoing assault has not just deepened their suffering — it has exposed the complete failure of US-backed diplomatic efforts. The Palestinian Authority, long seen as Washington’s preferred mechanism for managing the occupation, has lost whatever legitimacy it once had. As the study’s authors argue, the idea that a US-led peace process will deliver a just solution to the conflict is now as outdated as the assumption that Washington still has the power to unilaterally shape the region’s future.
The world that is emerging in the wake of Gaza genocide is one in which US dominance can no longer be taken for granted. Regional actors are asserting themselves, often in direct defiance of Washington’s goals. The global order that once revolved around American primacy is steadily shifting — not through dramatic upheavals, but through the cumulative weight of lost influence, realigned alliances, and a growing recognition that the US is no longer the undisputed power it once was.
According to Debating American Primacy in the Middle East, what we are witnessing is not just another moment of crisis, but a turning point. The contradictions of US foreign policy, the fragility of its alliances, and the limits of its power have all been laid bare. The decline of American hegemony is not a future projection—it is unfolding now, in real time, across the Middle East and beyond. The only question that remains is whether Washington will acknowledge this reality and adapt, or whether it will continue clinging to a system of dominance that is already slipping away.
According to the study, US primacy in the Middle East has never rested on military force alone. Its dominance was built on a mix of coercion, economic leverage, and the carefully maintained illusion of a liberal international order—one supposedly grounded in rules, institutions and multilateral diplomacy. But Israel’s aggression in Gaza has stripped away this façade, exposing a glaring double standard. The US, which has long positioned itself as a global defender of democracy and human rights, has instead found itself justifying and enabling an ally engaged in actions that violate the very principles it claims to uphold. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that Israel’s actions plausibly constitute genocide has put Washington in a position of unprecedented moral and political isolation. Rather than reassess its stance, the US has blocked ceasefire resolutions at the UN and continued to supply weapons, demonstrating that its commitment to “rules-based order” applies only when it serves American interests.
For decades, Washington’s closest Arab allies — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the UAE — have maintained their alignment with the US in exchange for security guarantees. But, as the study details, this arrangement is becoming harder to sustain. The assault on Gaza has ignited public anger across the Arab world at a level not seen since the early days of the Arab Spring, forcing even the most US-aligned governments to reconsider their positions. Jordan, historically one of America’s most reliable partners, took the extraordinary step of supporting the ICJ case against Israel. Saudi Arabia, which had been moving towards normalising ties with Israel under US mediation, has now been forced to shelve those plans indefinitely. The authors of the study argue that the US, once seen as the key regional power broker, is rapidly losing credibility as a mediator, let alone a hegemon.
One of the most striking points made in the study is the extent to which Washington’s commitment to Israel’s security has transformed from a strategic calculation into an ideological fixation — one that no longer serves even Israel’s interests. Far from ensuring its long-term security, US support has helped push Israel into deeper isolation. Since 7 October 2023, Israel has framed its assault on Gaza as an existential fight, but rather than eliminating Hamas, the war has instead made Gaza a global symbol of Western hypocrisy, strengthened resistance movements across the region and increased instability.
The study also points to the impact on America’s traditional alliances in Europe. While European governments have largely followed Washington’s lead in backing Israel, public opinion has shifted dramatically. The scale of destruction in Gaza has mobilised widespread protests and forced European leaders — many of whom have historically been staunchly pro-Israel — to adopt a more critical tone. This marks a significant break from previous US-European relations. For decades, the transatlantic alliance has been a key pillar of US global primacy, yet the study argues that Washington’s handling of Gaza has shown that it can no longer rely on automatic European backing. The Biden administration’s failure to secure a ceasefire despite months of mounting pressure has exposed the limits of its influence, not just over Israel but over its own allies.
Beyond the immediate diplomatic fallout, the study suggests that the broader consequences of this moment will reshape global power structures. The US dollar’s dominance in global trade and the influence of American-led financial institutions are already being challenged, with countries actively seeking ways to reduce their economic dependence on Washington. The BRICS alliance, which includes China, Russia and key Global South economies, is gaining momentum, with several Middle Eastern states expressing interest in closer ties. The study argues that if US primacy means unconditional support for Israel at any cost, then alternative global alignments will only become more attractive.
What emerges from this analysis is not the immediate collapse of US hegemony, but its gradual and highly visible erosion. The US remains a powerful actor, but the study makes it clear that Washington can no longer dictate terms as it once did. Arab states that were once deeply embedded in the American security architecture are actively diversifying their partnerships, strengthening ties with China, Russia and even Iran. The security arrangements that underpinned US dominance in the region for decades are now being renegotiated, with Washington struggling to keep up.
Perhaps nowhere is this shift more apparent than in the failure of the Abraham Accords to withstand the fallout from Gaza. The accords were designed to cement Israel’s integration into a US-backed regional order, but the ongoing assault has rendered them meaningless. Arab states that had normalised ties with Israel, such as the UAE and Bahrain, now find themselves having to publicly distance themselves from its actions. Saudi Arabia, once the key target for US-led normalisation efforts, has decisively stepped back. The study argues that the belief that Israel could maintain these deals while waging an all-out assault on Gaza was always unrealistic — and the events of the past year have confirmed that the future of the region will not be shaped by US-brokered backroom agreements but by the realities of power on the ground.
The study also highlights the internal impact on Israel itself, arguing that the Gaza assault has had devastating consequences not just for Palestinians but for Israeli democracy. The far-right government of Benjamin Netanyahu has used the crisis to push through increasingly authoritarian measures, suppressing dissent, targeting political opponents and further entrenching an anti-democratic state. For years, Israel’s defenders have justified US support by portraying it as “the only democracy in the Middle East,” yet its current trajectory calls that claim into question.
For Palestinians, the study makes clear that the ongoing assault has not just deepened their suffering — it has exposed the complete failure of US-backed diplomatic efforts. The Palestinian Authority, long seen as Washington’s preferred mechanism for managing the occupation, has lost whatever legitimacy it once had. As the study’s authors argue, the idea that a US-led peace process will deliver a just solution to the conflict is now as outdated as the assumption that Washington still has the power to unilaterally shape the region’s future.
The world that is emerging in the wake of Gaza genocide is one in which US dominance can no longer be taken for granted. Regional actors are asserting themselves, often in direct defiance of Washington’s goals. The global order that once revolved around American primacy is steadily shifting — not through dramatic upheavals, but through the cumulative weight of lost influence, realigned alliances, and a growing recognition that the US is no longer the undisputed power it once was.
According to Debating American Primacy in the Middle East, what we are witnessing is not just another moment of crisis, but a turning point. The contradictions of US foreign policy, the fragility of its alliances, and the limits of its power have all been laid bare. The decline of American hegemony is not a future projection—it is unfolding now, in real time, across the Middle East and beyond. The only question that remains is whether Washington will acknowledge this reality and adapt, or whether it will continue clinging to a system of dominance that is already slipping away.
Mitchell Plitnick
King Abdullah II of Jordan met with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. It’s hard to imagine a more difficult meeting for the Hashemite King.
With Abdullah sitting next to him and looking very tense and unhappy, Trump reiterated his plan for the United States to “take” Gaza and expel the two million Palestinians living there. Abdullah did his best to be diplomatic; he cannot afford to anger Trump with Jordan’s economy reeling, its political condition fragile, and the country already strained with refugees from the conflict in Syria.
Jordan needs U.S. support, and Trump knows it. He also seems to be aware that, while his administration has put a hold on foreign aid for the moment, it won’t serve U.S. interests, or Israeli ones, for the Hashemite regime to fall, which is one of the more likely outcomes if the U.S. cuts or suspends aid indefinitely.
Asked by a reporter if he was still considering threatening aid to Jordan if it refused to take in displaced Palestinians from Gaza, Trump responded, “I do think we’re above that. We contribute a lot of money to Jordan and to Egypt, by the way, a lot to both, but I don’t have to threaten that.”
Abdullah tried to offer an olive branch to Trump and help some Palestinian children who desperately need it at the same time, by offering to take in some 2,000 children from Gaza who are in dire need of the kind of medical care they cannot find easily in the devastated Strip after Israel destroyed its health care infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi stated flatly that he would not visit the White House as long as the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza was on the table. It seems likely that Sisi’s more forceful stance was coordinated with Abdullah’s diplomatic tone.
But the two leaders expressed the same stance, and they are not standing alone. While Sisi made the Arab stance plain, Abdullah, speaking beside Trump, told reporters, “We will be in Saudi Arabia to discuss how we can work with the president and with the United States. So I think let’s wait until the Egyptians can come and present it to the president, and not get ahead of ourselves.”
It is difficult to imagine an Arab plan that will meet with satisfaction in both the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. Trump’s plan may be short on realism and details, but it is already taking on a life of its own in Israel, and, with the ceasefire (which Israel has been increasingly violating) hanging by a thread, the renewed danger to the people of Gaza is growing.
Opposition in the Arab world
The interests of the Arab state leaders vary, and many would (and have) happily sell out the Palestinians for those interests. But even there, the explicit ethnic cleansing that Trump has discussed goes too far.
We can gauge this by looking at reports of what has been airing on mainstream Saudi Arabian channels. Saudi media generally hews strongly toward support of Saudi foreign policy and, as such, tends to be guarded when talking about the Palestinians.
But the current reporting is different. When Netanyahu suggested that Saudi Arabia make some space within its territory for a Palestinian state, the Saudi foreign ministry reacted with an angry statement of condemnation. In it, they referred to Netanyahu without his official title, which is out of step with their usual practice. State-run media channel Al-Ikhbariya confirmed this was intentional and added, “The name of the state no longer applies to Israel.” Another commentator later added that Netanyahu in “a Zionist, son of a Zionist” and stated that “the occupation has one face, and that face is Benjamin Netanyahu”.
These attacks mark a sharp break from the conciliatory language Saudi Arabia has been trying to present as it pursues normalization with Israel, an idea that has now been put on indefinite hold as long as Israel and the U.S. continue to treat the Palestinian issue in the manner they are doing.
It’s not just that Saudi Arabia is attacking Netanyahu through its media. Their tone on Hamas has undergone a sharp makeover. Hamas’ association with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is despised by the Saudi royal family, has generally meant unfavorable portrayals in the Saudi media.
That has changed, with some analysts even going as far as suggesting that Saudi Arabia should establish ties with Hamas, something it has not done in the past. More broadly, the Saudi media is acknowledging that Hamas is an inseparable part of Palestinian society and politics.
This can all certainly revert back quickly, but it is a mark of the obstacles the U.S. and Israel are putting in the path of the normalization agreement they claim to want so badly that Saudi Arabia is speaking, both indirectly and directly, in these terms. Whether Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman or any other member of the Saudi royal family truly cares about Palestinians or not, Saudi Arabia’s power derives, in part, from its position in the Arab and Muslim world. That position will be severely jeopardized, as will the security of the kingdom itself if the royal family is perceived to be abandoning the Palestinians openly.
This, together with Abdullah’s claim that Trump will soon see an Arab alternative to his plan of ethnic cleansing, suggests that the Saudis—who, after all, are the key players in Trump’s views and plans in the Middle East—will offer Trump a plan that would allow for the United States, as well as Saudi Arabia and likely other Arab states, to have a significant stake in reconstructing Gaza and in its post-reconstruction future.
That’s far from ideal, obviously, and it’s rife with dangers. But if Trump accepts such a plan (Israel certainly won’t) and sees enough advantage in it, he may back it. That would mean, at the very least, a further delay in Israel’s ability to pursue its ethnic cleansing and renewing its genocidal onslaught. It would buy time for more options to open in the near future.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to see the Arab states coming up with a plan that meets that standard. It would have to be enough for Trump to back away from his proclamations and push Israel to accept it. It’s hard, maybe impossible, to imagine what such a plan might be.
Abdullah succeeded in kicking the can down the road, at least until the February 27 summit in Cairo between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The UAE Ambassador to the U.S. recently poured some cold water on hopes for that summit, telling a reporter that he couldn’t see a better alternative to Trump’s plan.
Support in Israel
The Israeli public, by contrast, loves Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza. A poll conducted by the Jerusalem Post showed that 65% of Israelis support Trump’s plan, with another 14% backing it if the transfer is “voluntary.” Only 16% opposed the idea.
Three Israeli television stations conducted similar polls, with similar results: 76%, 72%, and 69% supporting the plan, respectively.
Clearly, there is a mandate in Israel for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. Yet even extremist pro-Israel advocates in the United States are skeptical. Jonathan Schanzer of the fanatically pro-Israel Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) noted that there is just no way Jordan can do what Trump wants it to.
“The numbers, the demographics in Jordan, are already to some extent a threat to the regime,” Schanzer told Jewish Insider. “Adding to that will only make matters worse, and it would absolutely further dilute the power structures long controlled by … the traditional Arab tribes of Jordan.”
Schanzer’s ethnocentric language and implicit comfort with war crimes aside, he does grasp the practical impossibility of Trump’s plan.
Ben Fishman of the AIPAC-spawned think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) told Jewish Insider that it would be extremely problematic for Jordan because it touches on the dream of the Israeli and pro-Israeli right for Jordan to be transformed into a Palestinian state. He noted that the view of the Jordanian population (and, we might add, that of the Palestinian people) is that “Jordan is Jordan, and the Palestinian state should be the Palestinian state.”
When such strong pro-Israel figures see these problems, it is all the more notable that the Trump administration seems to lack any grasp of them. But that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t moving forward.
With the support of so much of the Israeli public, the Israeli military could very well force the issue when it fully resumes its offensive in Gaza.
Almost as soon as Trump revealed his intent to ethnically cleanse, Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the Israeli military to devise a plan to facilitate the “voluntary” exit of Palestinians from Gaza.
When Israel calls a Palestinian exit from Gaza “voluntary,” they mean that a Palestinian has “voluntarily” fled for their life as Israeli soldiers killed those around them and fired their bullets and bombs at fleeing Palestinian backs.
Facilitating that exodus means that Israel would create a situation where Egypt and other Arab countries would be forced to accommodate the refugees in some way. This is, in fact, exactly what Egypt feared Israel would do last year when they constructed a large camp in the Sinai in which to hold Palestinians who might have been forced to flee Israel’s assault on Rafah.
Brutal though that onslaught was, it failed to force a flood of refugees across the Egyptian border. This time, the backing of the U.S. for the ethnic cleansing will be even stronger, or at least more explicit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in Washington, “Israel…can’t allow Hamas to use the ceasefire to rebuild itself and recover strength.” Rubio’s words seem to advocate an end to the ceasefire.
Israel has been dragging its feet on negotiating phase two of the ceasefire deal, which is supposed to take effect in the first week of March. It has become clear that Netanyahu has no intention of allowing that second phase—which would see the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the release of all living Israeli hostages—to come about.
Even aside from Trump’s proclamations, Netanyahu, even when he is not talking fancifully about “completely eliminating Hamas” has never wavered from his statements that Israel will continue to press the attack on Gaza until Hamas is eliminated as a political and military force. Given that Hamas continues to be a vital part of the Palestinian body politic, and that the genocide has only encouraged even more young Palestinians to join Hamas, it is certain that, by whatever means necessary, Netanyahu will resume the attacks.
Israel was the party that wanted to see the ceasefire end. Israeli officials anonymously confirmed that Hamas’ accusations about ceasefire violations were accurate. But Netanyahu isn’t ready to abandon all of the hostages yet.
It’s not that he cares about them; he could have freed them all by halting the genocide 15 months ago. But there has been an increase in the Israeli public’s concern about the hostages after seeing the condition of some who were released, having obviously been undernourished and reportedly having faced abusive conditions. As a result, Netanyahu needs to see the first phase, which will free civilian and female military hostages, through to the end.
There will still be significant pressure to secure the release of the remaining hostages, who would be male Israeli soldiers, but it is likely to be less than what exists now. At that point, as many of us expected, the first and only phase of this ceasefire will end, with the prospects of renewed genocide and a tidal wave of ethnic cleansing looming.
King Abdullah II of Jordan met with U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday. It’s hard to imagine a more difficult meeting for the Hashemite King.
With Abdullah sitting next to him and looking very tense and unhappy, Trump reiterated his plan for the United States to “take” Gaza and expel the two million Palestinians living there. Abdullah did his best to be diplomatic; he cannot afford to anger Trump with Jordan’s economy reeling, its political condition fragile, and the country already strained with refugees from the conflict in Syria.
Jordan needs U.S. support, and Trump knows it. He also seems to be aware that, while his administration has put a hold on foreign aid for the moment, it won’t serve U.S. interests, or Israeli ones, for the Hashemite regime to fall, which is one of the more likely outcomes if the U.S. cuts or suspends aid indefinitely.
Asked by a reporter if he was still considering threatening aid to Jordan if it refused to take in displaced Palestinians from Gaza, Trump responded, “I do think we’re above that. We contribute a lot of money to Jordan and to Egypt, by the way, a lot to both, but I don’t have to threaten that.”
Abdullah tried to offer an olive branch to Trump and help some Palestinian children who desperately need it at the same time, by offering to take in some 2,000 children from Gaza who are in dire need of the kind of medical care they cannot find easily in the devastated Strip after Israel destroyed its health care infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi stated flatly that he would not visit the White House as long as the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza was on the table. It seems likely that Sisi’s more forceful stance was coordinated with Abdullah’s diplomatic tone.
But the two leaders expressed the same stance, and they are not standing alone. While Sisi made the Arab stance plain, Abdullah, speaking beside Trump, told reporters, “We will be in Saudi Arabia to discuss how we can work with the president and with the United States. So I think let’s wait until the Egyptians can come and present it to the president, and not get ahead of ourselves.”
It is difficult to imagine an Arab plan that will meet with satisfaction in both the White House and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office. Trump’s plan may be short on realism and details, but it is already taking on a life of its own in Israel, and, with the ceasefire (which Israel has been increasingly violating) hanging by a thread, the renewed danger to the people of Gaza is growing.
Opposition in the Arab world
The interests of the Arab state leaders vary, and many would (and have) happily sell out the Palestinians for those interests. But even there, the explicit ethnic cleansing that Trump has discussed goes too far.
We can gauge this by looking at reports of what has been airing on mainstream Saudi Arabian channels. Saudi media generally hews strongly toward support of Saudi foreign policy and, as such, tends to be guarded when talking about the Palestinians.
But the current reporting is different. When Netanyahu suggested that Saudi Arabia make some space within its territory for a Palestinian state, the Saudi foreign ministry reacted with an angry statement of condemnation. In it, they referred to Netanyahu without his official title, which is out of step with their usual practice. State-run media channel Al-Ikhbariya confirmed this was intentional and added, “The name of the state no longer applies to Israel.” Another commentator later added that Netanyahu in “a Zionist, son of a Zionist” and stated that “the occupation has one face, and that face is Benjamin Netanyahu”.
These attacks mark a sharp break from the conciliatory language Saudi Arabia has been trying to present as it pursues normalization with Israel, an idea that has now been put on indefinite hold as long as Israel and the U.S. continue to treat the Palestinian issue in the manner they are doing.
It’s not just that Saudi Arabia is attacking Netanyahu through its media. Their tone on Hamas has undergone a sharp makeover. Hamas’ association with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is despised by the Saudi royal family, has generally meant unfavorable portrayals in the Saudi media.
That has changed, with some analysts even going as far as suggesting that Saudi Arabia should establish ties with Hamas, something it has not done in the past. More broadly, the Saudi media is acknowledging that Hamas is an inseparable part of Palestinian society and politics.
This can all certainly revert back quickly, but it is a mark of the obstacles the U.S. and Israel are putting in the path of the normalization agreement they claim to want so badly that Saudi Arabia is speaking, both indirectly and directly, in these terms. Whether Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman or any other member of the Saudi royal family truly cares about Palestinians or not, Saudi Arabia’s power derives, in part, from its position in the Arab and Muslim world. That position will be severely jeopardized, as will the security of the kingdom itself if the royal family is perceived to be abandoning the Palestinians openly.
This, together with Abdullah’s claim that Trump will soon see an Arab alternative to his plan of ethnic cleansing, suggests that the Saudis—who, after all, are the key players in Trump’s views and plans in the Middle East—will offer Trump a plan that would allow for the United States, as well as Saudi Arabia and likely other Arab states, to have a significant stake in reconstructing Gaza and in its post-reconstruction future.
That’s far from ideal, obviously, and it’s rife with dangers. But if Trump accepts such a plan (Israel certainly won’t) and sees enough advantage in it, he may back it. That would mean, at the very least, a further delay in Israel’s ability to pursue its ethnic cleansing and renewing its genocidal onslaught. It would buy time for more options to open in the near future.
Unfortunately, it’s hard to see the Arab states coming up with a plan that meets that standard. It would have to be enough for Trump to back away from his proclamations and push Israel to accept it. It’s hard, maybe impossible, to imagine what such a plan might be.
Abdullah succeeded in kicking the can down the road, at least until the February 27 summit in Cairo between the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia. The UAE Ambassador to the U.S. recently poured some cold water on hopes for that summit, telling a reporter that he couldn’t see a better alternative to Trump’s plan.
Support in Israel
The Israeli public, by contrast, loves Trump’s ethnic cleansing plan for Gaza. A poll conducted by the Jerusalem Post showed that 65% of Israelis support Trump’s plan, with another 14% backing it if the transfer is “voluntary.” Only 16% opposed the idea.
Three Israeli television stations conducted similar polls, with similar results: 76%, 72%, and 69% supporting the plan, respectively.
Clearly, there is a mandate in Israel for the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from Gaza. Yet even extremist pro-Israel advocates in the United States are skeptical. Jonathan Schanzer of the fanatically pro-Israel Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) noted that there is just no way Jordan can do what Trump wants it to.
“The numbers, the demographics in Jordan, are already to some extent a threat to the regime,” Schanzer told Jewish Insider. “Adding to that will only make matters worse, and it would absolutely further dilute the power structures long controlled by … the traditional Arab tribes of Jordan.”
Schanzer’s ethnocentric language and implicit comfort with war crimes aside, he does grasp the practical impossibility of Trump’s plan.
Ben Fishman of the AIPAC-spawned think tank the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) told Jewish Insider that it would be extremely problematic for Jordan because it touches on the dream of the Israeli and pro-Israeli right for Jordan to be transformed into a Palestinian state. He noted that the view of the Jordanian population (and, we might add, that of the Palestinian people) is that “Jordan is Jordan, and the Palestinian state should be the Palestinian state.”
When such strong pro-Israel figures see these problems, it is all the more notable that the Trump administration seems to lack any grasp of them. But that doesn’t mean the idea isn’t moving forward.
With the support of so much of the Israeli public, the Israeli military could very well force the issue when it fully resumes its offensive in Gaza.
Almost as soon as Trump revealed his intent to ethnically cleanse, Gaza, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz ordered the Israeli military to devise a plan to facilitate the “voluntary” exit of Palestinians from Gaza.
When Israel calls a Palestinian exit from Gaza “voluntary,” they mean that a Palestinian has “voluntarily” fled for their life as Israeli soldiers killed those around them and fired their bullets and bombs at fleeing Palestinian backs.
Facilitating that exodus means that Israel would create a situation where Egypt and other Arab countries would be forced to accommodate the refugees in some way. This is, in fact, exactly what Egypt feared Israel would do last year when they constructed a large camp in the Sinai in which to hold Palestinians who might have been forced to flee Israel’s assault on Rafah.
Brutal though that onslaught was, it failed to force a flood of refugees across the Egyptian border. This time, the backing of the U.S. for the ethnic cleansing will be even stronger, or at least more explicit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters in Washington, “Israel…can’t allow Hamas to use the ceasefire to rebuild itself and recover strength.” Rubio’s words seem to advocate an end to the ceasefire.
Israel has been dragging its feet on negotiating phase two of the ceasefire deal, which is supposed to take effect in the first week of March. It has become clear that Netanyahu has no intention of allowing that second phase—which would see the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the release of all living Israeli hostages—to come about.
Even aside from Trump’s proclamations, Netanyahu, even when he is not talking fancifully about “completely eliminating Hamas” has never wavered from his statements that Israel will continue to press the attack on Gaza until Hamas is eliminated as a political and military force. Given that Hamas continues to be a vital part of the Palestinian body politic, and that the genocide has only encouraged even more young Palestinians to join Hamas, it is certain that, by whatever means necessary, Netanyahu will resume the attacks.
Israel was the party that wanted to see the ceasefire end. Israeli officials anonymously confirmed that Hamas’ accusations about ceasefire violations were accurate. But Netanyahu isn’t ready to abandon all of the hostages yet.
It’s not that he cares about them; he could have freed them all by halting the genocide 15 months ago. But there has been an increase in the Israeli public’s concern about the hostages after seeing the condition of some who were released, having obviously been undernourished and reportedly having faced abusive conditions. As a result, Netanyahu needs to see the first phase, which will free civilian and female military hostages, through to the end.
There will still be significant pressure to secure the release of the remaining hostages, who would be male Israeli soldiers, but it is likely to be less than what exists now. At that point, as many of us expected, the first and only phase of this ceasefire will end, with the prospects of renewed genocide and a tidal wave of ethnic cleansing looming.
Hamas released three Israeli captives on Saturday, while Israel began releasing some 369 Palestinian prisoners and detainees in the latest swap under a fragile ceasefire deal.
Flanked by Hamas fighters, the captives - Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexander Sasha Troufanov and Iair Horn - were led on to a stage at the release site in Khan Younis, according to live footage.
The three captives, speaking briefly to the crowd through a microphone, urged further hostage exchanges under the ongoing ceasefire deal before being driven away in Red Cross vehicles into Israel.
Shortly afterwards, the first bus carrying freed Palestinian prisoners and detainees left Israel's Ofer Prison in the occupied West Bank. The bus arrived in Ramallah to a cheering crowd, with some waving Palestinian flags.
Dressed in traditional keffiyeh scarves, the prisoners were lifted on to the shoulders, embraced by their relatives and then taken for a brief health examination.
The former detainees also wore shirts emblazoned with the Star of David and the slogan “We will not forget or forgive” in Arabic.
The Palestinian Prisoners Club advocacy group said that some of the freed Palestinian prisoners are in extremely poor health. Prisoners previously released from Israeli jails have borne signs of severe torture, disease and starvation.
Shortly after, a convoy of buses carrying 333 prisoners freed from Israeli prisons arrived at the European Hospital in southern Gaza's Khan Younis, among them were a number of elderly prisoners, including a 70-year-old man. Al Jazeera reported that some of the former detainees wore their shirts inside out to hide the Israeli slogans.
The Palestinian Prisoners Club said 24 of the released prisoners are expected to be deported. Nearly all of the remaining 345 Palestinians are "prisoners from the Gaza Strip who were arrested after October 7", the group said.
Among the released prisoners are 36 individuals serving life sentences, many of whom have spent over 20 years in Israeli prisons.
In a statement, Hamas highlighted the discrepancy between the conditions of Israeli captives and the freed Palestinian detainees.
“We condemn the occupation’s crime of placing racist slogans on the backs of our heroic prisoners, and treating them with cruelty and violence, in a blatant violation of humanitarian laws and norms,” the group said.
Meanwhile, in Israel, hundreds gathered in Tel Aviv to watch the captives' release live on a large screen. People broke into cheers and tears as news broke that the Red Cross was on its way to deliver the three to Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip.
This marks the sixth exchange since the ceasefire took effect on January 19, easing fears that the ceasefire agreement could collapse before the end of its 42-day first stage.
The first stage of the truce deal involves the exchange of 33 Israeli captives for hundreds of Palestinian detainees, the return of internally displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza and the retreat of Israeli troops to a perimeter area.
Before Saturday's exchange, 16 Israeli captives had been returned, along with five Thai nationals, who were released in an unscheduled handover. Last week, three Israeli captives were released in exchange for 183 Palestinians.
The six-week truce was meant to pave the way for a second round of talks aimed at securing the release of remaining captives and completing the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The third stage of the ceasefire would involve a plan for the governance of Gaza and reconstruction.
Hamas had threatened to pause hostage releases over repeated Israeli violations of the agreement, while Israel threatened to resume the war if that happened. However, by Friday, both sides signalled the swap would go ahead as originally planned.
The Palestinian health ministry said on Tuesday that 92 people have been killed and 822 wounded since the start of the truce.
Flanked by Hamas fighters, the captives - Sagui Dekel-Chen, Alexander Sasha Troufanov and Iair Horn - were led on to a stage at the release site in Khan Younis, according to live footage.
The three captives, speaking briefly to the crowd through a microphone, urged further hostage exchanges under the ongoing ceasefire deal before being driven away in Red Cross vehicles into Israel.
Shortly afterwards, the first bus carrying freed Palestinian prisoners and detainees left Israel's Ofer Prison in the occupied West Bank. The bus arrived in Ramallah to a cheering crowd, with some waving Palestinian flags.
Dressed in traditional keffiyeh scarves, the prisoners were lifted on to the shoulders, embraced by their relatives and then taken for a brief health examination.
The former detainees also wore shirts emblazoned with the Star of David and the slogan “We will not forget or forgive” in Arabic.
The Palestinian Prisoners Club advocacy group said that some of the freed Palestinian prisoners are in extremely poor health. Prisoners previously released from Israeli jails have borne signs of severe torture, disease and starvation.
Shortly after, a convoy of buses carrying 333 prisoners freed from Israeli prisons arrived at the European Hospital in southern Gaza's Khan Younis, among them were a number of elderly prisoners, including a 70-year-old man. Al Jazeera reported that some of the former detainees wore their shirts inside out to hide the Israeli slogans.
The Palestinian Prisoners Club said 24 of the released prisoners are expected to be deported. Nearly all of the remaining 345 Palestinians are "prisoners from the Gaza Strip who were arrested after October 7", the group said.
Among the released prisoners are 36 individuals serving life sentences, many of whom have spent over 20 years in Israeli prisons.
In a statement, Hamas highlighted the discrepancy between the conditions of Israeli captives and the freed Palestinian detainees.
“We condemn the occupation’s crime of placing racist slogans on the backs of our heroic prisoners, and treating them with cruelty and violence, in a blatant violation of humanitarian laws and norms,” the group said.
Meanwhile, in Israel, hundreds gathered in Tel Aviv to watch the captives' release live on a large screen. People broke into cheers and tears as news broke that the Red Cross was on its way to deliver the three to Israeli military forces in the Gaza Strip.
This marks the sixth exchange since the ceasefire took effect on January 19, easing fears that the ceasefire agreement could collapse before the end of its 42-day first stage.
The first stage of the truce deal involves the exchange of 33 Israeli captives for hundreds of Palestinian detainees, the return of internally displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza and the retreat of Israeli troops to a perimeter area.
Before Saturday's exchange, 16 Israeli captives had been returned, along with five Thai nationals, who were released in an unscheduled handover. Last week, three Israeli captives were released in exchange for 183 Palestinians.
The six-week truce was meant to pave the way for a second round of talks aimed at securing the release of remaining captives and completing the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The third stage of the ceasefire would involve a plan for the governance of Gaza and reconstruction.
Hamas had threatened to pause hostage releases over repeated Israeli violations of the agreement, while Israel threatened to resume the war if that happened. However, by Friday, both sides signalled the swap would go ahead as originally planned.
The Palestinian health ministry said on Tuesday that 92 people have been killed and 822 wounded since the start of the truce.
No comments:
Post a Comment