Deciphering Trump's Latest Words on Israel and Its Issues

Will good sense prevail?

Netanyahu: Trump’s plan “could change history.” (The Times of Israel)

President Trump likes to make grandiose, often off-the-cuff statements that can be perplexing. In recent days he’s made statements on three issues—Gaza, Iran, and West Bank annexation—of particular concern to Israel, though certainly not only to Israel. Regarding each of these issues, it’s worth having a look at what the president said.

Gaza. In his Tuesday-evening press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump appeared to drop a bombshell by speaking of a total, permanent relocation of the Gaza population and an American administrative, or even military, takeover of the strip of land along the Mediterranean.

A hailstorm of responses highlighted two main problems with his words: the Arab countries mentioned as destinations for the Gazans, Egypt and Jordan, distinctly don’t want to take them in; and many Americans are unhappy with the idea of such a Middle Eastern “entanglement.”

By Wednesday, US officials were already walking back the president’s bold assertions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that “what [Trump] very generously has offered is the ability of the United States to go in and help with debris removal, help with munitions removal, help with reconstruction, the rebuilding [of] homes and businesses and things of this nature so that then people can move back in.” Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff told Republican senators that Trump “doesn’t want to put any US troops on the ground, and he doesn’t want to spend any US dollars at all.”

Michael Milshtein—a former Israeli intelligence officer, current head of Palestinian studies at the Moshe Dayan Center of Tel Aviv University, and one of Israel’s sharpest analysts of the Arab world—warns (in Hebrew, requires registration) in no uncertain terms that Trump’s plan for Gaza has inevitably sparked fierce opposition across the Arab world and endangers future cooperation of relatively moderate states like Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia with American and Israeli aims and strategies. Milshtein’s advice to America is: DON’T.

Takeaways: Egypt and Jordan’s refusal to accept Palestinians appears iron-clad, and while their and other Arab states’ furious rejection of Trump’s plan can be seen as hypocritical—help the Palestinians, but not in my backyard—it may be an unalterable fact of life. It should be noted, though, that Egypt and Jordan’s concerns about being destabilized by an influx of Gazan Palestinians are well-grounded, and a destabilization of one or both of those countries would be bad for Israel, too. Some also suggest that the plan is no more than an opening gambit in an effort to secure greater Arab cooperation in rehabilitating Gaza. Time will shed more light on the plan’s chances and its impact on reality.

Iran. In his press conference with Netanyahu, Trump noted:

Today, I also took action to restore a maximum pressure policy on the Iranian regime and we will once again enforce the most aggressive possible sanctions, drive Iranian oil exports to zero and diminish the regime's capacity to fund terror throughout the region and throughout the world.

In a tweet the next day, however, Trump wrote:

I want Iran to be a great and successful Country, but one that cannot have a Nuclear Weapon. Reports that the United States, working in conjunction with Israel, is going to blow Iran into smithereens, ARE GREATLY EXAGGERATED.

I would much prefer a Verified Nuclear Peace Agreement, which will let Iran peacefully grow and prosper. We should start working on it immediately, and have a big Middle East Celebration when it is signed and completed. God Bless the Middle East!

Takeaways: Trump’s restoration of his sanctions policy on Iran could not be more welcome, especially after four years in which the Biden administration failed to enforce sanctions on Iran’s oil sales and enabled the ayatollah regime to resume its severely destabilizing activities in the Middle East. Trump’s tweet, however, seems to imply that Iran’s nuclear program is the only problem with a country that otherwise will “peacefully grow and prosper.” That is hardly the case; even without a nuclear capability, the regime has been a fulcrum of brutal domestic repression and impoverishment, widespread terrorism, and general Middle East mayhem for four and a half decades. Hopefully Trump will keep his eye on the ball and realize that he is not a superman who can turn the Middle East into Shangri-La, and that this time around, Iran has been weakened by Israeli military activity and the Assad regime’s collapse and there is an opportunity to do more than apply tough sanctions.

West Bank annexation. Asked by an Israeli reporter, at his press conference with Netanyahu, whether he supports Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria, Trump responded:

Well, we’re discussing that with many of your representatives. You’re represented very well, and people do like the idea, but we haven’t taken a position on it yet. But we will be—we’ll be making an announcement probably on that very specific topic over the next four weeks.

Takeaways: The current Israeli population comprises 73.2% Jews (about 7.2 million), 21.1% percent Arabs (around 2 million), and 5.7% “other” (around .5 million, including people of Jewish ancestry who mostly affiliate with the Jews, non-Arab Christians, and others).

The current Arab population of the West Bank/Judea and Samaria comes to about 2.8 million. Doing the math reveals that adding this total to Israel—by annexing the territory—would cause Israel, which is existentially dependent on having a Jewish majority, severe demographic harm, especially considering that the large majority of West Bank Arabs are profoundly, often murderously hostile to Israeli Jews.

The fact that annexation is an awful idea doesn’t mean the “two-state solution” is a good one; it isn’t, either. The status quo may seem undramatic and unlovely but it’s the best available situation at this time.

Hopefully President Trump—who, alongside flamboyancy and grandiosity, generally pursues constructive policies regarding Israel—will eschew the destructive annexationist stance on this issue.