It could also be just what the Middle East needs
After a century of Palestinian leaders rejecting a two-state-solution, Trump’s proposal could be a wakeup call that peace is the only solution

By DAOUD KUTTAB (February 21, 2025) This story was originally published in the Forward (https://forward.com/opinion/698785/gaza-palestine-israel-trump/). Click here to get the Forward’s free email newsletters delivered to your inbox.
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.
Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of journalism at Princeton University. His twitter handle is @daoudkuttab

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward. Discover more perspectives in Opinion. To contact Opinion authors, email opinion@forward.com.

By HENRY SREBRNIK Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks the beginning of a new era on the global stage and is expected to bring significant changes to the international balance of power. 

Trump capitalized on a sense of discontent that had been building since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s and was galvanized by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Many of his advisers are part of a foreign policy movement on the Republican Party right who call themselves “restrainers” and are against what they consider America’s 21^st century involvement in “forever wars.” For them, the neoconservative interventionists have overextended the country’s commitment abroad.

President Trump’s policy in his second term will continue to concentrate on distinct American interests. His America First emphasis means Trump is likely to reduce involvement in international institutions, while demanding that NATO and other allies take greater responsibility for their own defence.

The Middle East today features dangers and opportunities that were not present when he first took office eight years ago. The greatest danger remains Iran’s advances toward acquiring nuclear weapons. The best opportunities have emerged from Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and Hamas, its successful attacks on Iran, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

A year and a half ago, Iran’s foreign policy could possibly have been considered enormously successful. But since then, Israel has turned the tables. Hamas will not again pose a serious military threat to Israel. The Israelis have wiped out Hezbollah’s leadership and given Lebanon a chance to reclaim its sovereignty. And Assad’s regime is gone. 

Weakening Iran will be a priority. Trump is expected to intensify the “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, including imposing additional severe sanctions and making a concentrated effort to ensure their enforcement. To stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions may also require the credible threat of military action. He is likely to seek to strengthen the regional front against Iran, including close cooperation with Israel and the Gulf states.

Trump’s proposal that the United States “take over” and rebuild Gaza while its residents live elsewhere is far-fetched. But it might better be seen as a reflection of the fact that no realistic plan for Gaza exists. Since 2005, when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, Washington has tried to buy off Hamas – and this culminated in the 2023 attacks. While the administration may continue to oppose Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, any future participation of Hamas in Palestinian self-government is unacceptable.

Trump will continue efforts to stabilize Lebanon, particularly following the election of Washington’s preferred candidate, Joseph Aoun, as its president. The U.S. will demand that the Lebanese armed forces prevent a renewed Hezbollah presence in the south and guard Lebanon’s borders to stop Iranian arms supplies from entering.

As for Turkey, relations may continue to be contentious, particularly regarding Ankara’s antagonism to the Kurds in northern Syria, its hostility toward Israel and support for Hamas, and growing closeness to Russia and China. Washington might try to influence the new Syrian regime, which, after all, seeks to consolidate its power and present itself as striving for a more Western-oriented approach. It will also be U.S. policy to maintain Washington’s partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces until the militia’s status and future safety are secured.

Finally, Trump’s policies will involve expanding the Abraham Accords, a highlight of his first term, by having Israel focus on advancing normalization with Saudi Arabia. Trump has also again designated the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization, which President Biden had revoked.

The confrontation with China will remain a central focus of Trump’s global policy, particularly in economic and technological aspects. Trump has sought to confront China over what he says is a number of economic abuses: intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, export and other subsidies, and economic espionage. He says aggressive action is required to protect American workers and to reduce the United States’ large bilateral trade deficit. 

Tensions over Taiwan will continue to threaten regional stability in East Asia. It is likely that Trump does not want to be perceived as abandoning Taiwan and U.S. commitments to the island, but at the same time, he does not want Taiwan to drag the United States into a military conflict. He has observed that “Taiwan is 9,500 miles away” from the United States, while it’s “68 miles away from China.” 

Trump has long been critical of American support for Kyiv and has moved to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. His statements suggest that he is not necessarily committed to preserving Ukrainian sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders and may be open to a deal that allows Russia to maintain its presence in occupied Ukrainian territories as well as legitimizing its possession of Crimea. He has told Europe that it cannot depend indefinitely on the United States and must do more to aid Ukraine.

He also wants Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earth minerals as a form of payment for financially assisting the country’s war efforts against Russia.

The world will be a very different place over the next four years. After all, as one newspaper put it, Trump was elected to “be a wrecking ball to the Beltway elites.”

Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.

By HENRY SREBRNIK Several protesters walked out during Irish President Michael Higgins’s speech at the Holocaust Memorial Day event in Dublin on Jan. 26. Representatives of the Jewish community had asked him not to give the keynote address because, they asserted, critical comments he has made about Israeli actions in Gaza made him an “inappropriate” pick for the event. 

They referred to his “grave insensitivity to Irish Jews,” but the president insisted he has always stood up against anti-Semitism.

This was no surprise, because the Republic of Ireland has become Europe’s most merciless critic of Israel. Archbishop Eamon Martin, Ireland’s most senior Catholic figure, in his 2025 New Year’s message also criticized Israel’s military campaign in Gaza as “merciless” and a “disproportionate” response to Hamas’s invasion of the Jewish state.

Two weeks before that, Israel had already announced it was closing its embassy in Dublin in response to the Irish government’s repeated anti-Israel statements, its indifference to rising anti-Semitism, a great deal of it coming from its parliamentarians, and in particular its decision, formalized on Jan. 7, to join South Africa in accusing Israel of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 

Israel’s Foreign Minister, Gideon Sa’ar, explained the Dec. 15 decision, stating that Ireland had crossed “every red line” with its actions and rhetoric. He accused Ireland of “antisemitism based on the delegitimization and dehumanization of Israel.”

Israel’s ambassador to Ireland said closing the embassy was a “tough decision” for her country to take. Dana Erlich added that Ireland has taken “a more extreme stance than any other country” against Israel. 

 “This is an abuse of the international multilateral system by South Africa, we were sorry to see Ireland join it, but this joins an accumulation of steps, rhetoric and initiatives that we’ve seen Ireland trying to promote this past year,” she added. The Irish government said there were no plans to close its embassy in Israel.

Since Hamas’ attack on Israel, Ireland has emerged as one of the Jewish state’s fiercest critics and relations between the two countries have frayed. Its middle classes are among the most Israelophobic in all of Europe. 

Posters of Israeli hostages are defaced in public spaces, while school textbooks disseminate narratives that demonize Israel and Judaism. Vehement opposition to Israel and Zionism has seen demonstrations in Dublin that include the flying of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine flags, with chants that hurl invective at all Jews. 

Reports of targeted attacks against Jewish individuals, paired with the embassy closure, have left Jewish residents and visitors without the diplomatic support they need in an increasingly dangerous climate.

On the campus of University College Dublin, a sign read, “Zionist-Free Zone.” Trinity College Dublin was one of the first universities in the world to divest from Israeli companies and the campus is a veritable sea of keffiyehs. (Boycott as a concept and a tool of direct action has its roots in British-colonized Ireland.) The students’ union declared that Zionists were not welcome on campus. Jewish students were offered a safe room if they felt they were in danger. 

Yet the republic’s rulers are in denial. “I utterly reject that Ireland is anti-Israel,” declared Prime Minister Simon Harris. We’re just “pro-peace, pro-human rights, and pro-international law,” he insisted. 

Harris said his country would arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he landed there, following the issuance of arrest warrants for both Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant by the International Criminal Court. 

Shortly after, Micheal Martin, the country’s minister of foreign affairs and defence, announced on Nov. 7 that Ireland would be backing South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the ICJ, in a reflection of the country’s long-standing position of solidarity with the Palestinian cause. His comment came on the same day that the Irish parliament passed a motion saying that “genocide is being perpetrated before our eyes by Israel in Gaza.” Three days later, the Anglican Church of Ireland’s Canon David Oxley claimed that Israelis saw Jews as a “master race” — a term usually associated with Nazi ideology.

But Maurice Cohen, Ireland’s Jewish Representative Council chairperson, said the Irish intervention in the ICJ case risks “oversimplifying a highly complex and tragic conflict, unfairly isolating Israel, and undermining the integrity of the term ‘genocide.’” 

Relations between the two countries have long been complex. Ireland only extended de jure recognition of Israel in 1963 and established diplomatic relations in 1975. Until recently, Ireland had refused to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, unlike most European countries. 

Sa’ar alluded to Ireland’s neutrality during World War II, when anti-British Irish nationalists cooperated against Britain with the Nazis. Indeed, on May 2, 1945, then-Prime Minister Eamon de Valera visited the Nazi ministry in Dublin and sent his condolences to the German people over Hitler’s death. A woefully poor decision, his gesture was nonetheless motivated by the overzealous need to demonstrate Ireland’s anti-British, pro-neutrality position.

The island was under English and then British rule for more than 800 years (and Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom). That “has undoubtedly shaped how people from Ireland engage with post-colonial conflicts,” asserted Jane Ohlmeyer, a history professor at Trinity College. 

So clearly, some of the Irish hostility to Israel derives from the anti-British, anti-imperialist perspective of Irish history: the idea that the Palestinian experience at the hands of Israel is similar to that of the Irish with the British. 

“Leaders often ask me why the Irish have such empathy for the Palestinian people. And the answer is simple: We see our history in their eyes,” former prime minister Leo Varadkar explained. “A story of displacement, of dispossession, national identity questioned or denied, forced emigration, discrimination, and now, hunger.” Not surprisingly, Jilan Wahba Abdalmajid, the Palestinian ambassador to Ireland, agreed, maintaining that Irish support comes from a history of shared experiences. 

Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Eddward Island.