US colonial plan against Gaza comes to standstill
What are Netanyahu, Trump after?
Just as the recent cease-fire in Gaza began, the US president and the Zionists made public their plans to determine the fate of Gaza and its people, which are, more than anything, aimed at completing the “ethnic cleansing” project that began in October 2023. The Americans and Zionists, in political coordination, have repeated such plans in recent days without considering the scope of their consequences and implications and with an unrealistic sense of ownership over Palestinian land. In this regard, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of the Zionist regime, told its Channel 14: “The Saudis can create a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia; they have a lot of land over there.” These statements were made in response to the Saudis’ demand for the formation of a Palestinian state as a precondition for Saudi Arabia’s normalization of relations with Israel. The Saudi Foreign Ministry condemned Netanyahu’s statements, asserting: “This extremist, occupying mentality does not understand what the Palestinian land means to the brotherly people of Palestine. The Kingdom affirms that the Palestinian people have a right to their land, and they are not intruders or immigrants to it who can be expelled whenever the brutal Israeli occupation wishes. The Kingdom reiterates that the right of the Palestinian People will remain firmly established.” Moreover, Saudi Arabia rejected Netanyahu’s claim that “peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia is not only feasible, I think it’s going to happen,” emphasizing that normalizing relations with the Zionist regime without the establishment of a Palestinian state is invalid.
Objectives of US-Israeli plans
The plans proposed by the US and Israel concerning the displacement of Gaza’s population and changing the status of the region emerged within the context of their strategic, security, and geopolitical objectives following the Gaza War. These plans can be analyzed from several perspectives:
1. Making Israel secure: Israel has long portrayed Gaza, especially after Hamas assumed control of the strip, as a security threat. Displacing the Palestinian population has been suggested in order to weaken resistance and disconnect Palestinians of Gaza from their brethren elsewhere in the Occupied Territories. As such, establishing a security buffer zone along Israel’s borders is a likely goal of this plan. US control over Gaza or the forced departure of Palestinians could assure Israel that no threats would emanate from the region.
2. Entrenching Zionist control over Occupied Territories: With US backing, Israel may seek to annex parts of Gaza or bring it under direct Zionist control. This aligns with the historical Zionist policy of territorial expansion.
3. Undermining Palestinian territorial identity: Displacing Palestinians from Gaza or scattering them could weaken their territorial identity. Proposing the establishment of a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia may also be aimed at diverting historical Palestinian claims and fragmenting the Arab world.
4. Eliminating the threat of Hamas:
Israel and the US are determined to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas and other Palestinian groups, which use Gaza as a base for attacks against Israel. Displacing Gaza’s population could temporarily reduce this threat.
5. Blocking the formation of a
Palestinian state: Netanyahu, invoking the events of October 7, 2023, considers any possibility of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza a “security threat” to Israel, viewing it as a launchpad for future attacks. He has repeatedly rejected the idea of Palestinian statehood, stating that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state would mean the victory of Hamas and Iran.
6. Circumventing Saudi Arabia’s
conditions: Saudi Arabia has consistently emphasized that normalizing relations with Israel depends on the creation of a Palestinian state, particularly following the October 7, 2023, and Israel’s crimes and massacre in Gaza. Saudi Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan underscored the two-state solution at a Riyadh meeting, asserting that the establishment of a Palestinian state is Saudi Arabia’s precondition for normalizing relations with Israel. By suggesting the relocation of the Palestinian state to Arabian soil, Netanyahu effectively dismisses Riyadh’s conditions, seeking to redefine the issue on his own terms.
7. Aligning with Trump’s plans: Donald Trump, the US president, has proposed placing Gaza under US control following the war, transforming it into a tourist resort. Netanyahu reinforces a similar narrative by citing Arabia’s “empty lands” as a solution for Palestinian displacement.
8. Furthering US strategic interests: Under Trump’s leadership, the US likely seeks to strengthen its regional allies, such as Israel. Controlling Gaza could establish a new military or political outpost for monitoring the broader Middle East.
9. Securing resources: Gaza’s strategic coastal position in the Mediterranean makes it desirable. Displacing its population and exerting control over the territory could enable Israel or the US to exploit natural resources or expand security projects.
10. Reducing international pressure: Displacing Gaza’s population could alleviate international pressure on Israel as the removal of Palestinians from Gaza could allow Israel to claim the Palestinian issue has been resolved.
11. Redefining regional equations: US control over Gaza could shift regional dynamics in favor of the US and Israel, potentially diminishing Iran’s influence and that of other regional competitors.
Impact of Netanyahu’s recent statements
A member of the powerful Saudi Shura Council, Yousef bin Trad al-Saadoun, just wrote a piece for the Saudi newspaper, Okaz, maintaining that Tel Aviv is using Trump’s statements as a diplomatic tool to normalize relations with Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia, and to divert global public opinion from the crimes of Israeli occupation.
Saudi Arabia’s insistence on the precondition of a Palestinian state and its rejection of Netanyahu’s proposal indicate Riyadh’s reluctance to compromise on the issue at this time. This disagreement could delay or even halt the normalization process. Furthermore, Netanyahu’s statements have sparked widespread anger across Arab countries, potentially strengthening regional unity against Israel.
Regional reactions
The Saudi Foreign Ministry has described Netanyahu’s proposal as extremist and a violation of Palestinian historical rights, emphasizing that sustainable peace can only be achieved through the two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state in Occupied Territories. Countries like Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Kuwait, and Oman have also condemned Netanyahu’s remarks as provocative and a violation of Arab sovereignty, firmly rejecting them. Hamas has condemned the proposal as “supremacist,” reflecting Israel’s “expansionist ambitions,” while praising Saudi Arabia’s stance. Ahmed Aboul Gheit, secretary-general of the Arab League, has also condemned Netanyahu’s statements, declaring that the Palestinian state should be established solely on Palestinian soil, with East Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as its capital. He dismissed other ideas as fantasies” entertained by those advancing them.
Regional implications of imperialist plans
1. Escalating tensions: These proposals have intensified tensions between Israel and Arab countries and could embolden Palestinian resistance groups.
2. Strengthening resistance groups: Forcing the displacement of Gaza’s population could fuel Palestinian discontent and bolster groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad, posing long-term threats to Israel’s security.
3. Exacerbating Gaza’s crisis: Focusing on Palestinian displacement diverts global attention from Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, reducing prospects for a durable cease-fire.
4. Undermining Israel’s and America’s international standing: These plans will face widespread condemnation from regional and international organizations. It may enable other countries to further reduce US influence in the region.
5. Disrupting peace talks: Such actions could severely disrupt peace processes and erode trust between the parties.
6. Reinforcing the two-state solution: Many countries and international bodies, including the UN, recognize the two-state solution based on 1967 borders as the only lasting path. Deviating from this path risks further regional instability.
The plans proposed by Israel and the US are less about achieving peace and more about reshaping the realities on the field and imposing one-sided conditions. These actions will not resolve the Palestinian crisis but risk fueling widespread instability in the region through violations of international law and human rights. In reality, the forced displacement of Gaza’s population serves as a tool for achieving Israel’s and America’s political and strategic goals. It is potentially part of a broader strategy to exert greater control over the Middle East and alter Gaza’s demographic makeup.
In this context, the resistance of Arab countries, the response of international organizations, and the actions of Palestinian groups will play a decisive role in the success or failure of these plans. Netanyahu’s recent statements not only highlight Israel’s reluctance to accept Palestinian rights but also reflect a broader effort to redefine regional equations in Israel’s favor, in line with US plans. This tactic aims to divert attention from Gaza’s displacement and reduce international and public pressure. While Israel and the US primarily seek to reduce Hamas’s threat and create a security buffer along Israel’s borders, the consequences of these plans could be highly negative and dangerous. It already faces strong opposition from Arab countries, undermines the efforts to normalize relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and potentially empowers Arab and Muslim unity to defend Palestinian rights.
The article first appeared in
the Farsi-language newspaper Farhikhtegan.