Trump–Netanyahu’s Gaza plan breaks Palestinian taboos

Necessity does not always justify violating taboos, especially in the Palestinian context. If ending the genocide and ethnic cleansing that Israel is carrying out in Gaza is a moral and humanitarian imperative, then the forced displacement of the strip’s residents, the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, the expulsion of the resistance, and handing over Israeli captives for nothing in return are the very taboos that neither Palestinians nor regional states should accept under any pretext.

Breaking these taboos would simply mean the liquidation of the Palestinian cause and the loss of what remains of Palestinians’ rightful claims. Worse still, it would open the door to a new diaspora, this time sanctioned by Arab regimes. Thus, the Al-Aqsa Flood operation, launched to prevent the deep-freezing of the Palestinian cause, would itself trigger a new Nakba.

Barely two days after the ceasefire between Israel and Iran, Hebrew media revealed details of a proposal to end the war on Gaza within two weeks.

The proposed plan, described by Israel Hayom as a set of “understandings,” resulted from a four-way conversation involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, President Donald Trump, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

These “understandings” for a Gaza ceasefire include expanding the Abraham Accords, enforcing partial Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, expelling Hamas leaders from Gaza, and releasing Israeli captives.

According to this US–Israeli proposal, four Arab countries, including Egypt and UAE, would assume direct responsibility for administering the Gaza Strip the day after the war. Concurrently, a number of countries would express willingness to receive Gazans wishing to emigrate, while key Arab and Islamic states, including Syria and Saudi Arabia, would recognize Israel and establish diplomatic relations. In return, the occupation state would show a “preliminary readiness” to push towards a two-state solution—on its own terms, of course.

“Gaza for the Palestinians”

After failing to achieve his objectives during the 12-day war, Netanyahu sought to project an image of “victory,” despite knowing better than anyone that his inability to force Iran to “surrender” constituted a strategic failure. Nevertheless, he insists on imposing a deal on the Gaza front that he had not been able to impose through “force,” followed by “greater force,” for over 21 months.

Netanyahu’s failed gambit against the Islamic Republic, which was funded, supported, and co-executed by USA and NATO, does not entitle him to impose an unconditional surrender on Palestinians or on the region. Yet that is precisely what he and his friend Trump are planning: to reshape the regional landscape in a way that aligns with Israel’s security interests.

The two men dream of positioning the occupation state as a regional superpower able to dictate terms across the Middle East. Thus, the orange peacock has decided to end the Gaza war and rapidly expand the Abraham Accords, securing another item on his checklist of “electoral victories.”

For Trump, a man obsessed with dazzling, overwhelming wins, regardless of their veracity or his own aides’ skepticism, it’s a seductive idea.

Trump rescued his friend Bibi from the loss, humiliation, and chaos that nearly engulfed. Now, he aims to save him from trial on corruption charges in the Israeli courts, calling for the cases to be dropped or for a pardon to be granted to this “great hero” who could not have been “stronger in his LOVE for the incredible Holy Land.” Justice, in this case, is a “travesty that cannot be allowed.”

The American president believes that sparing Netanyahu from prison is the key to securing his agreement to the deal. For Netanyahu, survival is paramount, even if it means fighting until the last Palestinian in Gaza, or the last Israeli soldier.

Trump understands this equation well. On one hand, he’s pressuring Israeli institutions to close Bibi’s criminal files. On the other, he is building a political umbrella to shield the Israeli government from collapse, given that hardline ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich are expected to withdraw from the coalition if Netanyahu makes any “dangerous concessions.”

But Trump and his buddy overlook one crucial reality: the success of their proposal hinges first and foremost on the Palestinian resistance movements accepting its terms of surrender. And that remains unlikely, given that these groups continue to achieve tactical gains on the battlefield, inflicting heavy losses on Israeli forces, by Israel’s own admission.

Such progress only reinforces their resolve to demand a full end to the war and a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.

Hamas, for its part, announced months ago its readiness to relinquish governance after the war ends, expressing openness to the Egyptian initiative to transfer authority to a “community support committee.” However, the group has firmly rejected any disarmament or exile of its leaders, according to a senior Hamas official speaking to this writer.

The proposal simply ignores the facts on the ground: the Israeli occupation army has not won; it is mired in Gaza’s quagmire. The resistance has not been broken, and the people of Gaza remain steadfast, rallying behind those still standing in the field.

The US–Israeli proposal presumes that Palestinians are a people without memory, ready to abandon their land, weapons, and future in exchange for an end to the bombing and a one-way ticket to nowhere.

Egypt’s position is clear: There will be no displacement of Gaza’s population, no administration of Gaza, and no involvement in a scenario that could be seen as a final liquidation of the cause.

A well-informed source reaffirmed this to the author, noting that Cairo has informed relevant capitals “Gaza is for the Palestinians. We will not govern it on anyone’s behalf, nor do we wish to confront a wounded people who consider us supporters, not partners in occupation.”

The source warned “If any Arab force enters Gaza, it could be seen as a new occupation, opening the door to vengeance and bloodshed rather than helping close the wounds of war.”

In short, the situation on the ground gives Israel no mandate. Hamas’s rejection, Egypt’s stance, and widespread Arab anger all point to one conclusion: what is being cooked up behind closed doors will not make it to the table.

This is not a settlement. It is a veiled liquidation effort, dressed up in the language of peace, with states that have either already set conditions for normalization or await the signal to jump aboard the train in deference to Washington.

Trump wants to end the war in two weeks, like a real estate deal. Netanyahu wants to dodge prison with a political pact built atop the corpses of Gaza’s dead. But these deals contain no seeds of life. Every attempt to pass them off as Hollywood endings will only lead to another flood, one whose outcome no one can predict.