Mohannad Mustafa explains on the Al-Jazeera Arabic website the reasons behind Trump’s changing tone regarding his ‘proposal’ for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
President Donald Trump’s suggestion to expel the residents of the Gaza Strip was eagerly embraced by the Israeli right-wing. It was a proposal he had wanted to implement since the beginning of the assault on Gaza and is considered one of the unofficial objectives of the war.
During the war, the Ministry of Intelligence prepared a detailed plan for the deportation scenario in Gaza.
In January, the Israeli right organized a conference on the expulsion of Gaza’s residents, attended by ministers and Knesset (Israeli Parliament) members from the ruling coalition. The right-wing official movement continued in this regard.
The idea of deportation was not limited to the right-wing, however. Knesset member Ram Ben-Barak from the opposition ‘There is a Future’ party, who previously held the position of Minister of Defense, along with Knesset member Danny Danon from Likud, published an article advocating for the “voluntary migration” of Gaza’s residents, distributing them across the world.
As the assault continued and Israel failed to expel Gaza’s residents, it attempted to implement a partial deportation plan in the northern Gaza Strip since last October (2023-the start of the Israeli war on Gaza-PC), but this effort also failed.
Trump revived the deportation idea in Israeli minds again after he presented the details of the plan in a press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. A week later, the Israeli Security Cabinet officially adopted Trump’s plan during its first meeting after Netanyahu’s return. Netanyahu considered it an excellent plan and later admitted that Israel had collaborated with the US administration in shaping the plan and influenced Trump’s position on it.
Trump’s deportation plan revived the Zionist imagination, which sees resolving the Palestinian issue through deportation (known as Zionist literature as ‘transfer’-PC). This path was not resolved by the Zionist movement in 1948 (Nakba) and 1967 (Naksa).
Trump’s plan is seen as the foundation in Zionist-Israeli thought, not the exception. Opposition to the transfer of Palestinians over the past four decades by certain political currents was not for moral reasons, but because they believed that ethnic cleansing was no longer acceptable. When Trump proposed it, most Israeli political movements represented in the Knesset (except for the Democratic Labor Party led by Yair Golan) welcomed it.
Following Israel’s adoption of Trump’s proposal, the Israeli Defense Minister began setting up a special administration within the Ministry of Defense to prepare a detailed plan to deport the Gaza population. This plan would involve providing economic incentives to the residents, encouraging them to leave through Israeli land, sea, and air crossings. The administration consists of employees and representatives from various government ministries, working on its implementation, though it remains unclear whether the plan requires occupying the Gaza Strip.
Three Currents
The Israeli debate over Trump’s plan has divided into three currents: those who oppose it for ethical reasons, the minority within the Israeli scene; those who support it but believe it is unfeasible, though they think it could be used to pressure regional actors to achieve Israeli interests; and a third current that supports it and believes it is achievable, particularly if the United States is serious about it.
Within Israeli Jewish society, a survey by the Institute for Jewish Peoplehood Policies found that 53% of Israeli Jews support the proposal and its implementation, while 30% support it but think it is impractical and unfeasible. The rest oppose it for various reasons.
In tracking the Israeli debate, particularly official rhetoric, it is easy to notice a swift retreat from discussing the proposal. This shift in rhetoric is connected to a decrease in the conversation about it within the US administration, especially with President Trump, who initially said his plan was excellent but later stated that he would not impose it but only recommend it.
This represents a clear decline in the intensity and seriousness of the rhetoric compared to when the plan was first proposed, particularly in the joint statement with Netanyahu. US officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, indicated that Trump’s proposal was on the table unless the Arabs suggested an alternative. This suggests that the US administration shifted from proposing it as a goal to using it as a tool to pressure regional actors into offering a political solution for Gaza’s future that aligns with the US goal of ending Hamas’s rule in Gaza, in exchange for reconstruction without deportation.
In monitoring the Israeli discourse just before the end of the first stage of the ceasefire agreement and the start of talks for the second stage, Israel returned to discussing the war objectives, namely disarming Gaza and ending Hamas’s rule, without mentioning Trump’s deportation proposal. Instead, it emphasized Trump’s rhetoric about the importance of quickly releasing all Israeli prisoners and hostages.
The Bigger Picture
Israel understands that a larger and broader political track is unfolding in the region, beyond the ceasefire agreement’s political track. This broader Arab track, which emerged in response to Trump’s deportation proposal, continues to engage with the US administration. It may eventually lead to an Arab proposal, with US approval, based on the equation of reconstruction without deportation and without Hamas’s rule.
While the broader political track will ultimately lead to the end of Hamas’s rule through an Arab-Palestinian consensus and US approval, it puts pressure on Israel, which wants to achieve this on its own through a process in which it would be a participating and influential actor.
Therefore, Israel laid out its conditions for the second phase of ceasefire negotiations, particularly disarmament in Gaza. The Arab proposal, which prevents deportation, presents a dilemma for Netanyahu’s government. It is based on a professional Palestinian government independent of the Palestinian Authority, without Hamas’s participation. However, in the long run, it would lead to the return of the PA as the reference for this government, which Israel does not want. Israel insists that it wants a government without both Hamas and the PA.
If the Arab proposal succeeds in convincing the US administration, it will end the deportation plan and the Israeli right-wing’s long-held dream of expelling Gaza’s residents. This is why the US and later Israeli rhetoric has retreated from the ethnic cleansing plan, although it remains present in the discourse of the right-wing settlement movement within the government.
Israel’s upcoming efforts will focus on influencing the Arab proposal regarding reconstruction and Gaza’s governance. However, the US administration, with a broader political track than the current ceasefire agreement, will push Israel to engage in the second-stage negotiations and resolve the ‘Gaza issue.’
This threatens Netanyahu’s government, which had recently re-solidified around the deportation proposal. Netanyahu sought to stabilize his government by selling the idea that deportation would force everyone to stay in the government, even if the price was continuing with the current agreement. Ultimately, Israel faces an old dream that may come true with the ‘transfer’ of Gaza’s residents.
The success of the Arab proposal and the seriousness of Arab movements in this regard will be a decisive factor, and perhaps the most influential since 1967. Preventing ethnic cleansing, halting the war, and rebuilding Palestinian governance could ultimately frustrate Israeli plans and pave the way for a serious path toward the long-term unity of the West Bank and Gaza.
– Mohannad Mustafa is a Palestinian lecturer in political science and history, and a researcher at the Mada al-Carmel Center for Social Studies in Haifa.
(Al-Jazeera Arabic website – Translated and prepared by the Palestine Chronicle)
