The images emanating from Washington at the beginning of last week, the sight of two statesmen patting each other on the back and attesting to their respective historical greatness, reflect the deep narcissism and hubris of the protagonists themselves. On one side, Donald Trump, who wants to see himself go down in history as a peacemaker and publicly opines on his alleged peace-making successes every two minutes. On the other, Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who — primarily out of his own political will to survive, but also out of his misanthropic contempt for Palestinian life — is prepared to prolong the genocide in Gaza as long as possible and needs Washington’s support to do so.
Gil Shohat directs the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation’s Israel Office.
Behind this lies spectacle Netanyahu’s obsession with imposing his vision of a new order in the West Asia region, for which he needs Trump’s military backing, as was the case in the recent war against Iran. The result of this political constellation is therefore a deal that, although vaguely coquetted as a “peace plan”, at best slows down the destruction of Palestinian existence and offers no prospect of Palestinian self-determination.
At first glance, the plan contains a number of points that appear to be welcome: a first step towards stopping the genocide in Gaza, the release of all Israeli hostages — alive or dead — in exchange for thousands of Palestinian prisoners, an end to the systematic destruction of infrastructure in the Strip, a gradual withdrawal of the IDF, the deployment of an international peacekeeping force beyond direct Israeli control, and guarantees of unhindered humanitarian aid. If actually implemented, all this could stop the immediate deaths, end the worst atrocities, and facilitate at least a brief respite.
That said, there is one glaring omission concerning the future of the Gaza Strip and Palestine: the involvement of the Palestinians themselves. As so often, their voice remains excluded — as if it were not their immediate future at stake, but merely a geopolitical and profit-driven investment project between Israel and the US with the help of neighbouring states. Instead of a multilateral process involving the Palestinians, we once again are witness to an act of colonial redivision in the guise of a peace plan.
At the same time, the plan reveals Netanyahu’s failure to maintain complete and unconditional American backing for the messianic-genocidal fantasies entertained by his far-right coalition. Trump forced concessions that initially appeared to violate a taboo for right-wing Israeli ministers and settler supporters such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir: the plan would block the continuation of ethnic cleansing in the Gaza Strip, negate open adherence to the idea of permanent expulsion of the population, and restrict Israel’s unfettered access to all security policy levers. Although Netanyahu is already trying to appease representatives of the settler movement, who believe they are on the verge of repopulating the Gaza Strip, the break with their maximalist demands is undeniable.
The people of Gaza and the West Bank face a cruel choice: either the continued destruction of their homeland or a partial withdrawal of the Israeli army while maintaining security controls without any prospect of self-determination.
Yet it is precisely in “selling” these painful compromises to his political base that Netanyahu's well-known tactics come to the fore. As in previous instances when he allowed Trump to extract compromises, he built in loopholes at the last second that will make it easier to sabotage the contentious points later on. These include vague guidelines for the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces to a buffer zone, undefined criteria concerning the reform of the Palestinian Authority as the precondition for its return to the Gaza Strip (which Israel has always ruled out), and the assurance to “finish the job” in Gaza should Hamas not accept all points of the plan. These loopholes will allow Netanyahu to torpedo the agreement at the first opportunity. Indeed, he used similar mechanisms to undermine the last ceasefire in March of this year.
Trump’s greatest PR success with his supporters in Israel is that he has distanced himself — at least for the time being — from recognizing a Palestinian state. At the same time, the number of countries around the world taking this very step, however symbolic it may be, is growing, as they recognize that decades of waiting for Israel to voluntarily end its occupation and expulsion was a serious strategic mistake at the expense of the Palestinians, but ultimately also of the Israelis themselves. That said, in light of the total destruction of Gaza and Israel’s ongoing expulsions and settlement expansion in the West Bank, it may now be too late for a viable two-state solution.
Almost two years after the attacks of 7 October, following destruction that continues to this day and has now been classified as genocide by numerous experts, the people of Gaza and the West Bank face a cruel choice: either the continued destruction of their homeland or a partial withdrawal of the Israeli army while maintaining security controls without any prospect of self-determination.
If Hamas accepts this proposal, the much-vaunted breakthrough would ultimately amount to little more than a fragile ceasefire. And yet the legitimate question arises as to whether, in the current apocalyptic situation, this is not the lesser of two evils in order to save the people of Gaza for the time being. The spectacle at the White House was primarily a show put on by two men who mirror each other in their deep self-absorption and portray each other as great men of history. But as we know, the beginning of a just peace process requires more than the narcissism of two statesmen. Above all, it requires the involvement of the people who have paid the highest price for decades of inaction on the part of the Western world: the Palestinians. In that sense, the Gaza Strip continues to be treated not as the basis of Palestinian life, but rather the object of a geopolitical business model.
Translated by Loren Balhorn.