On Saturday January 11th, president-elect Donald Trump sent his Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff to have a chat with Netanyahu. It was widely reported that the Israeli PM’s aides informed Witkoff that he could not disturb Bibi with such a meeting, as it fell on the Sabbath day of rest. As reported by Haaretz, “Witkoff’s blunt reaction took them by surprise. He explained to them in salty English that Shabbat was of no interest to him. His message was loud and clear.” Netanyahu was going to discuss the ceasefire deal, or have hell to pay for it.
After negotiations in Doha that went down to the wire, a ceasefire agreement was finally achieved between Israel and Hamas — just in time for Trump’s inauguration. The ceasefire is at least ostensibly meant to achieve a lasting end to the Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip since the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Notably, this was something that the Biden administration lacked the backbone to accomplish, despite the fact that it was ever apparent that the genocide in Gaza wasn’t particularly good for US foreign interests.
This shift in tone and change in tack between Biden and Trump on Gaza has been subject to much attention ever since. On the surface and with the help of Witkoff — a fellow billionaire and real-estate magnate with little experience in foreign diplomacy — Trump seemed to achieve the unachievable: successful negotiations between both parties and perhaps an end to the genocide, nearly 500 days after it began.
But being that Trump is no champion of the Palestinian people, we must interrogate his motivations for this in order to stay vigilant with regards to what is likely to come.
The grand display of pressure on Israel
It is fairly well known that Trump is not the biggest fan of Netanyahu. Not long ago, he circulated a video on his Truth Social platform denigrating him, and complaining that Israel has consistently tried to lead the US into foreign conflicts on its behalf. The video features Jeffrey Sachs calling Netanyahu a “deep dark son of a bitch,” and when Trump was asked to comment on the guy, he very eloquently replied, “fuck him.” From Putin to Kim Jong Un, Trump has long made a big display of approaching foreign relations through cults of personality, so on the surface it would be easy to presume that this is playing a role in his dealings with Netanyahu as he begins his second term in office.
Moreover, as Ali Abunimah observes in a recent article for Electronic Intifada, “While Trump is often unpredictable and mercurial, a consistent aspect of his worldview is that he does not view America’s traditional ‘allies’ as anything more than client states who are taking advantage of American largesse.” For example, Abunimah recalls, “This was his view of NATO in his first term, when he accused Germany, supposedly the bedrock of the transatlantic security alliance, of ‘making a fortune’ off US troops stationed in the country. ‘Demanding billions from ostensible allies and partners, [Trump] thundered, ‘Why should we defend countries and not be reimbursed?’” It is indeed likely that Trump is viewing relations with Israel as a simple transaction — one where if the US is paying the bills, then it had better follow the orders.
Yet, such explanations for why Trump pushed the ceasefire deal over the line can also be misleading. These tendencies have led some to conclude that Israel now has to contend with a dynamic with Washington that will be markedly distinct from what they enjoyed under the Biden administration. For instance, as the Guardian reported, “The Israeli prime minister is ‘scared’ of antagonising Trump, according to a European diplomat. […] ‘They’ve had maximum support during this war and what comes next is not so certain,’ the diplomat said. ‘They need to work with Trump now. At least in the beginning.’”
Far more likely, the US establishment has been convinced for a long time that Israel is not going to win the war against Hamas. Trump may have the spine to put an end to it in a way that Biden — a lifelong Zionist himself — did not. However, it is also likely that both Trump and Netanyahu timed the ceasefire agreement in a way that would benefit them both. Trump could take credit as well and project an image of dominance and prestige, that he can add this to his legacy as the one who can push a deal to end the conflict in the Middle East. After all, as Giorgio Cafiero argues for The New Arab, “What Trump often did in his first term was broker relatively artificial deals and sell them as huge diplomatic accomplishments that brought about a type of ‘peace’ that no previous US administration achieved.”
The real question, then, is what lies behind the political theatrics, and specifically, as Alice Speri reports for Al Jazeera, “what sort of reward Trump will be giving to the Israelis, and Netanyahu in particular, when they come to cash in.”
Picture: Maria Cofalka
“Deal of the Century” set to run amok
That question can be answered — at least in part — by Trump’s greenlight for Netanyahu to redirect his genocidal agenda on the West Bank. Upon taking office, Trump removed sanctions on Israeli settlers. We have also seen the usual Israeli expansionist psychosis released there — including aerial bombing and full-fledged military operations — particularly in historic sites of resistance like Jenin. Yet, it is likely that through his very lack of concern for the people of the Middle East, Trump underestimates the impacts of actions such as rewarding the Israelis with the West Bank, all while it resumes attacks on Lebanon and expands into Syrian territory.
Trump’s brazen shortsightedness becomes clear when we consider what is likely his central motivation for pushing a ceasefire in Gaza, where prestige and image cultivation are really only fringe benefits for a leader set on viewing other countries as clients and business partners, rather than doing politics with them. It is probable that Trump’s real agenda is to strive toward normalization between Israel and other countries in the Middle East to maximize business dealings with wealthy players in the region.
This is a continuation of his business-forward approach during his last term. Back in 2020, he brokered the Abraham Accords, which functioned as a normalization deal between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. As Cafiero reports in the aforementioned article for The New Arab, “The new US national security advisor Mike Waltz said he has high hopes for the ‘next phase of the Abraham Accords’, with Israeli-Saudi normalisation a ‘huge priority’ for Trump’s administration.” As Cafiero puts it, “From Trump’s perspective, quiet fronts in Lebanon and Gaza are needed to convince the Saudi leadership to join the Abraham Accords.”
Yet, this is unlikely to be successful for a number of key reasons overlooked by the myopia and entitlement ingrained in the US foreign policy agenda. For one, Saudi Arabia has far less incentive to normalize relations with Israel now that Iran has been significantly weakened due to successive blows to the Axis of Resistance and, therefore, its regional sphere of influence. Furthermore, the Israelis are unlikely to agree to further concessions, such as a pathway toward a two-state solution, that would make lasting peace in Palestine a reality, as this would be seen as a reward for the last 15 months of armed resistance.
More than this, however, Trump’s lack of concern for the people in the region he is meddling in completely overlooks the element of public opinion. This is something that Saudi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) cannot do, considering that, according to a poll from late 2023, “96 percent of Saudis believed […] that all Arab states should sever ties with Israel in response to the aggression against Gaza.” MbS has seen his own popularity markedly rise in light of statements he has made in solidarity with the Palestinian people. To bypass all of this and sign onto the Abraham Accords could be both political and perhaps even literal suicide, as shown by the example of Egyptian President Anwar Saddat’s assassination after signing a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
Public opinion: Israel’s Achilles heel
By allowing Israel to continue its onslaught in the West Bank, not only is the US failing to contend with public opinion in attempting to broker a deal with the Saudis, but he is playing a dangerous game in the region more broadly. As Hearst contends, the US army “has so many assets and bases in the region which are supremely vulnerable to local public opinion of their host nation. […] Trump will not be in a position to ignore the collapse of Jordan if it happens. […] It would threaten the entire US military footprint in the region.”
Jordan, a key site of US military presence in the Middle East, is also host to millions of Palestinian refugees, and the country shares a border with the West Bank itself. Particularly now that Trump is calling to “just clear out” Gaza via full-scale ethnic cleansing of the enclave, suggesting that neighboring countries of Jordan and Egypt absorb the Gazan refugees. Both nations have already firmly rejected such a plan (not to mention, this form of forced displacement would also constitute a war crime.) Indeed, as Hearst argues, the Americans “see the region through the prism of Israel. America has always done this, but the myopia is even greater today.” No doubt, the shared tendency of the Israelis and the Americans to misread the Arabs constitutes what Hearst refers to as their Achilles heel.
Moreover, Israel’s own image in the eyes of the world is unlikely to recover for generations to come. In fact, as Abdaljawad Omar writes for Mondoweiss, “Israel’s most exceptional achievement lies not in securing victory but in showcasing unrelenting devastation—a capacity to destroy on an immense scale. This persistence in destruction, rather than achieving security, underscores the lengths to which Israel is willing—and permitted—to go. In this paradox lies its most profound failure: the collapse of its ethical narrative and the erosion of its moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world.” And even if the downfall of the Zionist project is imminent, as Ilan Pappé warns, its collapse will be its most violent phase.
Taken together, it would be a grave mistake to regard Trump’s business-first presidency as ushering in any meaningful peace in the region, as his tendency to approach diplomacy, as a series of shortsighted deals brings any tenuous stability in the Middle East closer to a breaking point with each passing day. Therefore, even in light of the ceasefire agreement, we must remain focused and steadfast in our solidarity with the Palestinian struggle.
