Make the Gaza band a “riviera”? This is a plan to resolve the Israeli-Palestinen conflict that no one expected. Under the eye of the cameras on Tuesday, February 4, the Israeli Prime Minister himself seemed to be taken aback in the face of Donald Trump’s idea to force the exodus some 2 million Palestinians to build “pretty houses”. If the proposal made the Western chancelleries jump which, Cahin-Caha are trying to react to the dazzling of the new tenant of the White House, it could well be to another actor than Donald Trump is addressed. Decryption with Frédéric Enlord, essayist and geopolitologist specializing in the Middle East, also a columnist at L’Express.
L’Express: Should Donald Trump’s proposals be taken seriously on the Gaza Strip?
Frédéric Enlord: The problem with an unpredictable personality is that by definition, you never know exactly when it is serious or if it says true. An important point in geopolitics: unpredictability, either organized or characteristic, can constitute an interesting instrument of a deterrent type in front of adversaries or allies who, not knowing if it is bacon or pig, could tend to influence their position on a number of files. In this case, Donald Trump had never launched this properly incredible proposal aimed at making Gaza a “riviera”, and thus, to move most of the Palestinian population – or about 2 million people. So there, we really have something new. Second point, this proposal is all the more problematic since it is completely contradictory and inconsistent with regard to its own posture. Here is a Donald Trump which, in a rather constant and coherent way, is readily asserted itself isolationist, but which proposes to take control of the Gaza Strip. We are not talking about spiritual and ideological control, it is indeed an economic and military control.
Precisely, what about the American army, does such a proposal necessarily mean the commitment of soldiers to Gaza?
The problem is that if it sent to Gaza, it would be doubly in contradiction. Primo, because it is not a story objectively vital or existential for the security of the United States. Deuzio, because it asks heavy questions on the moral and ethical level. This is the leader of one of the most former democratic states in the world which offers a forced exodus of hundreds of thousands of people. A choice of a territory that is not even border or strategic for the United States, without asking them for their opinion.
Is such an initiative achievable from the point of view of international law, and what would prevent Trump from taking control of Gaza by force?
First of all, from the point of view of international law, Trump’s proposal is completely above ground. It is strictly prohibited for any sovereign state to go and project forces aimed at moving a population. It’s just unimaginable. Please note, in open war times, the Geneva conventions provide for the possibility not to move populations, but military maneuvers which may consist in provisional incarceration and, under specific conditions, of a population located on a field of battle. But there, this is absolutely not the case. Then, the United States of America has enough force projection vectors, have enough soldiers and equipment to land in the Gaza Strip and drive hundreds of thousands of people. But beware! Hamas is defeated, but it is not completely crushed. However, American public opinion, after Vietnam, after Somalia, after Afghanistan, after Iraq, is not ready to see again American soldiers die in Gaza.
Doesn’t this proposal come up against an inconsistency with Donald Trump’s desire to tighten the links between Saudi Arabia and Israel engaged during his first mandate under the aegis of the Abraham agreements?
By a false paradox, I think it addresses Saudi Arabia precisely because Saudi Arabia is asking for more American alliances. Saudi Arabia is very afraid of Iran, and is very afraid of the radical Islamist opposition. Saudi Arabia therefore needs to go further with Israel, in particular thanks to what the Hebrew State can bring on the military and intelligence. Trump is an absolute mercantilist. He is seeking stability in the region which would mainly benefit Saudi Arabia. Because this country has bought, since 1945 and increasingly, hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment. However, Trump is frantically backed by this desire to make work tens of thousands of American workers and to see his trade balance come out of red. And from this point of view, the stability of the region, and therefore the solvency of Saudi Arabia, is central.
Precisely as with Canada and Mexico, is it not in a logic of “deal”, namely to ask a lot to have a little?
We can consider that Trump is trying to send a message to Saudi Arabia by saying to them: “We are ready to go very far, so constitute a fund for reconstruction of the Gaza Strip, it is you who will help pay Reconstruction. This is only a hypothesis. So obviously, at first, MBS can only say no to a forced exodus of Arab populations. But, when we had asked MBS if he was worried about the fate of the Palestinians, his answer had been approximately: “No, but my people yes”. However, in an autocratic state, public opinion hardly counts.
At what price would Egypt and Jordan be ready to submit to the will of Donald Trump? Does he have activated levers?
The levers are extremely strong. They are of two main orders. What dominates in international relations is the cultural and military dimension. Economically, since the 1978-1979 Camp Peace According to Camp David, Israel and Egypt affect $ 3.5 billion and $ 1.2 billion respectively. It is not a white check with which these countries do whatever they want. It is a question of buying American equipment on shelf. For Cairo, it is very important, because the Egyptian economy is in a state of quasi-permanent banking and it is only supported by Saudi Arabia which sees it as a kind of life insurance.
Egypt is largely dependent on its economic survival of the United States, which gives Trump a very considerable lever. Regarding Jordan, the means of pressure are both economic – the United States has repeatedly erased the Jordanian – and military debt since there are American, British and now French bases. This country is protected by Westerners, including Americans. It is clear that both Cairo and Amman are under pressure from the United States. But there is no doubt that Al-Sissi and Abdallah II of Jordan will prefer to lose money, begging for it elsewhere and even making social movements due to a social and economic weakening of the regime rather than welcoming hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. For these two regimes, the danger would be fatal. First of all because the main opponents of Al-Sissi are the Muslim Brotherhood. Now, what is Hamas if not the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Could this situation lead to the creation of a terrorist international?
This is the risk. Egypt is perfectly aware of this. A massive exodus of Palestinians would lead to importing thousands of future activists or Islamist fighters at home. It would be madness. And Abdallah II, like his father before him, is very much wary of activism and an irredentism which would be that of the Palestinians.
On the Israeli perspective, what assessment can we draw from the visit of Benyamin Netanyahu to Washington?
I draw attention to the face of Netanyahu who looks, on the images, quite surprised. We really have the impression that this is not at all that was discussed or negotiated between the Israeli Prime Minister and the President. Here we have an extremely assumed form of unpredictability. Netanyahu has a lot of faults, but he is not stupid. He always wanted to escape the spectrum of the emergence of a Palestinian state. Reason why it is much more satisfied with the status quo. Because a solution as radical as that of Trump could lead to a massive wave of Palestinian immigration in Europe.
Faced with both Donald Trump’s proposal, and this spectrum of a possible Palestinian migratory wave on the old continent, how can Europe react?
Nothing can do anything except to contest and condemn Trump’s suggestion for moral and ethical reasons. On the humanitarian level, it can take its share in the reception of Palestinian refugees. But on the geopolitical level it can do nothing, because on this level, it does not exist.
.