Trump’s opportunity to determine the Middle East’s future
Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, January 11
Donald Trump is poised to be inaugurated as the 47th president of the US on January 20, 2025, marking a historic milestone as the Republican candidate achieved a remarkable majority in both the electoral and popular vote. What sets Trump’s victory apart is the shadow of legal troubles hanging over him, with 34 felony charges and pending prosecutions in various state and federal courts – unprecedented for someone elected to the highest office in the US.
Since 1987, numerous books attributed to [sic] Trump have been published, all centering around a singular topic: Trump himself. While none offer a clear intellectual framework or theoretical backbone to his thinking, one can gather that he sees all things as having a price.
During his initial presidency, as per his own admission, Trump leaned extensively on television and commercial media as his primary sources of world and domestic events, sidelining historical resources, scholarly works, or validated official statements. His former staff frequently highlighted his unpredictable and volatile demeanor, making him an ever-tempting target for manipulation.
Comprehending Trump’s mindset is crucial, considering that his presidential decisions will ripple across domestic and international landscapes. Among American and European Democrats, his critics have vociferously accused him of eroding the rules-based international order they purport to uphold. Ironically, these critics’ double standards have proven more detrimental than Trump’s often incendiary rhetoric.
Trump’s past rhetoric and nominations indicate that in a second term, he will ardently pursue his convictions, showing minimal regard for dissenting views within or outside his party. It appears Trump holds the potential to redefine the future of international relations, but whether his impact will be catastrophic or epochal is yet to be seen.
As a second-term leader, Trump’s influence will undoubtedly be significant, shaped by his successes and failures. For example, his “America First” agenda could significantly sway global geopolitics, and his imposition of economic tariffs on both allies and adversaries could challenge the free-market system and international frameworks long championed by the West.
His stance on climate change poses a threat to fragile efforts aimed at fostering global consensus on the issue. Additionally, critical areas such as the Ukraine conflict and tensions in the Middle East will notably impact his policies and objectives.
Viewed from a broad lens, Trump’s approach to foreign affairs is encapsulated in a few distinct themes. On the one hand, his focus on economic returns and costs, prioritizing them above political or strategic geographical considerations, aligns with his isolationist “America First” doctrine, epitomized by reduced global military involvement. Hence, Trump’s approach is often characterized as short-term and transactional, steeped in trade matters.
Conversely, his dealings in international relations are pragmatic and rooted in a winner-loser paradigm rather than moral judgments. Trump is not a warmonger; he is a dealmaker. In international contexts, this strategy is often equated with diplomacy; however, Trump’s style is intrinsically personal, bypassing traditional diplomatic institutions to achieve objectives.
Despite being preferable to aggressive military action, this method is compromised by Trump’s tendency to favor power and dominance, often disregarding the rights of others. On Ukraine, Trump’s national security adviser nominee Mike Waltz recently penned that engaging in a protracted war of attrition against a larger foe is a path to defeat. Some in Trump’s close circle argue that aid to Ukraine should be contingent upon Kyiv initiating peace talks with Russia, with negotiations reflecting current front lines.
They have also proposed postponing Ukraine’s sought-after NATO membership. Widespread commentary urges Kyiv to temper its expectations of a Russian withdrawal from its occupied territories in eastern Ukraine. Trump’s angle on this matter seemingly centers on safeguarding Ukraine’s security rather than its territorial sovereignty.
His clear stance on NATO members underperforming in the alliance has stirred anxiety among allies about the potential repercussions on the alliance’s capability to deter aggressive leaders. Notably, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz engaged in an extensive phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on November 15, highlighting these concerns.
Besides claiming he can resolve the Ukraine war in a day, Trump has also promised peace in the Middle East. He has historically aligned closely with Israeli policies but has never engaged with Palestinian leadership despite maintaining robust relations with many Arab leaders.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not endorsed a two-state solution, even under Trump’s outlined deal. Given the recent tragedies in Gaza, a Saudi-Israeli agreement would be challenging, as Saudi Arabia has declared that an independent Palestinian state is a prerequisite for peace with Israel.
Trump has already shown a desire to end violence in Gaza and Lebanon before taking office. However, achieving this crucial aim will necessitate a delicate balancing act. This intricate endeavor must encompass the Israeli right, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and other regional actors whose national interests are intertwined.
The current scenario proposes an all-or-nothing paradigm, prompting the question of whether Trump will pursue a “grand bargain” toward a comprehensive Middle East resolution or opt for focused achievements, casting them as major deals. The new president’s interest in brokering a deal could be intriguing and, if successful, historic; however, Trump’s penchant for prioritizing wealth and power over moral principles might come at a significant cost to Palestinian and Arab rights amid occupation.
In conclusion, drawing from Trump’s prior endeavors in the Middle East and his statements on Ukraine, one might predict his so-called “second deal of the century” will encompass less than what is desired for Gaza and the West Bank, which aligns with Israel’s stance against a fully independent Palestinian state, while allowing Israel to retain control over substantial portions of the West Bank. Meanwhile, the establishment of a symbolic Palestinian state might prompt Arab states to aid in managing Gaza and streamline regional relations with Israel.
Should Trump successfully resolve the conflicts and attain real peace in Ukraine and the Arab-Israeli standoff, he would have effectively wielded diplomacy as a prime conflict resolution tool. Conversely, if his unconventional methods prioritizing power dynamics over legitimate rights falter, they risk dismantling the core principles of international law governing regional and national conflicts, potentially leading to grave repercussions on global order and international relations for future generations. Only time will determine the unfolding scenario. – Nabil Fahmy
It’s time for an honest conversation about Gaza
Al-Arabiya, Saudi Arabia, January 17
After the initial surge of enthusiasm that swept across the Arab world following Hamas’s attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and the subsequent brutal assault on Gaza and its people, a vast majority of the Arab public showed unwavering support for Hamas. Only a small segment of the Arab elite questioned the efficacy of these attacks and the significant cost they might entail for the Palestinians and their cause.
The dominant Arab public opinion posited that it was not the appropriate time to critique Hamas, given its fight against an extermination army accused of committing war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity in full view of the world.
Nevertheless, following an agreement on a prisoner exchange and a return to sustainable calm, a new opportunity presents itself for an objective, calm, and emotionally nuanced discussion to dissect the events since Hamas’s attacks and the ensuing violent aggression. This discourse isn’t solely the domain of intellectuals, writers, the media, and Palestinian and Arab public opinion, but it is primarily the responsibility of Hamas, the Palestinian National Authority, and the remaining factions to engage in it.
Though the tension and destruction continue to dominate Gaza, prioritizing a thorough review of these events is essential, even obligatory. Many might concur that the Palestinian struggle has endured severe setbacks over the last 15 months, significantly diverting the pursuit of rights and the dismantling of the apartheid regime, while hopes for an independent Palestinian state have dimmed.
The protracted, blood-soaked war – the most extended conflict since the 1948 Nakba – has established new ground realities. The political horizon appears bleak, making future discourse seemingly futile. Certainly, even before Hamas’s attacks, Israel, bolstered by the Trump administration, had effectively removed the Palestinian issue from the regional agenda, ending talks of potential negotiations. Some perceived this as a transient state, likely to change with Netanyahu’s political exit and a shift in American leadership.
Yet, the war has entrenched the marginalization of the Palestinian cause, reshaping it into a pressing humanitarian crisis that emphasizes saving Palestinians from ongoing violence, destruction, displacement, and potential deportation. This scenario has been exacerbated by internal Palestinian divisions, which Israel has exploited to perpetrate further crimes, neglecting both international responses and judicial scrutiny.
The aggressive conflict, initially perceived as a catalyst for unity and strategic alignment among Palestinians, has instead deepened divisions and reciprocal blame between Hamas and the Authority, striking at a time when Israel has indiscriminately targeted both factions – be it through killings, demolitions, and genocide in Gaza, or raids and land seizures in the West Bank.
The human toll of this war is the most sobering, painful, and tragic aspect. Statistics reveal a horrifying aftermath of aggression: 46,000 martyrs, with humanitarian organizations claiming the number exceeds 70,000. There are 110,000 wounded, a quarter with permanent disabilities. Nine out of ten homes were either destroyed or damaged, prompting international experts to equate it to “killing homes,” akin to genocide.
Of the 564 pre-war schools, 534 were either obliterated or rendered unfit for education. An entire year of formal education was lost for Gaza’s 660,000 students. A staggering 1.9 million people, equating to 90% of the Strip’s populace, faced repeated displacements, with hundreds of thousands now sheltered in tents and shelters, prone to further occupation bombings. The health system has nearly collapsed, and the war has left 40 million tons of debris in its wake, with landmine removal projected to take a decade.
Did the strategists and executors of the attacks foresee such a harrowing aftermath? Could some actions during the attacks, later exploited by Zionist propaganda to justify brutal Palestinian reprisal, have been averted?
A retrospective on the war’s conduct over recent months, alongside the negotiations, is imperative. This moment isn’t about passing judgment; history and future developments will serve that purpose. Even victors scrutinize past wars, so how can there not be a review of an issue that has regressed so drastically?
The Palestinian Authority must also partake in this introspection. Why did it fixate on its rift with Hamas, allowing the West Bank to become a battleground for aggression and territorial usurpation without intervening?
The upcoming period is crucial for the Palestinian cause – a defining moment of existence. Creating consensus on a liberation strategy, including means, and determining whether the struggle will be peaceful or military is urgent. Antiquated methods, reneging on unity agreements, monopolizing decision-making, and excluding citizens from such processes – be it through elections or the ratification of agreements – are obsolete and merit change. – Abdullah Abdul Salam
Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.