Could Trump be persuaded to save Palestinians in Gaza? | Kenneth Roth

It seems paradoxical to look to Donald Trump to save the Palestinians, yet no recent American president has been better placed to insist that the Israeli government stop its extraordinary repression and brutality. Trump so far has largely given Israel carte blanche to continue its genocide in Gaza, but Benjamin Netanyahu would be remiss to count on the fickle and self-serving American president. And there may be a way to turn Trump around.

Most US presidents have stuck with the Israeli government regardless of its atrocities because the political fallout of deviating was too high. Any pressure on Israel would be sure to trigger outrage from Christian evangelicals (Israel’s largest group of supporters in the US) and the conservative segment of American Jews represented by the lobbying group Aipac.

Trump is less susceptible to such pressure because there is no major political figure to his right. Israel’s supporters can complain, but they have no place to turn.

Trump has already used that latitude to differ from the Israeli prime minister on a range of issues. He lifted sanctions on the interim Syrian authorities when Netanyahu preferred a crippled neighbor. He struck a deal with Houthi forces in Yemen to stop attacking shipping without insisting on an end to attacks on Israel. He authorized direct negotiations with Hamas, which Netanyahu considered anathema, and initially pursued negotiations with Iran while Netanyahu preferred immediate bombing. He visited the Arab Gulf states without stopping in Israel. And he put pressure on Netanyahu twice to agree to temporary ceasefires in Gaza.

In other respects, Trump has supported the Netanyahu government. He authorized renewed delivery of the 2,000-pound bombs that Joe Biden had suspended because Israel was using them to decimate Palestinian neighborhoods. He vetoed a UN security council call for an unconditional ceasefire. He imposed sanctions on the international criminal court (ICC) prosecutor for charging Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant with the war crime of starving and depriving Palestinian civilians. He also sanctioned two ICC judges for affirming the charges, and a UN special rapporteur for accurately reporting on and denouncing Israel’s genocide.

But Netanyahu could find it perilous to count on Trump. Despite the periodic shows of mutual support, there seems to be no love lost between the two men. Moreover, Trump’s mood changes with the weather. He can turn on a dime with barely a blush. His loyalty is foremost to himself. His only lodestar is his political or financial self-interest.

There are plenty of reasons for the transactional Trump to sour on Netanyahu. While Trump bellyaches about the funds spent to defend Ukraine’s democracy from Vladimir Putin’s invasion, the US government has sent more than $22bn to Israel to sustain its war in Gaza, with no end in sight (more than $300bn since Israel’s founding in 1948). Netanyahu seems to treat an open spigot from Washington as an entitlement, but Trump can easily develop an allergy to such enormous expenditures.

Then there is Trump’s ego. Netanyahu’s pronouncement during his White House visit this month that he had nominated Trump for a Nobel peace prize was cringe-worthy in its pandering, especially from a man whose willingness to relentlessly kill Palestinian civilians as a vehicle to retain power and avoid pending corruption charges is the main obstacle to a ceasefire.

But Trump seems genuinely to want a Nobel peace prize. That won’t happen by underwriting the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, which Trump initially proposed and Netanyahu’s far-right ministers, who are capable of collapsing his governing coalition, are demanding. Nor will it come from sequestering Palestinians in a “concentration camp”, as former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert describes the proposal of the Israeli defense minister, Israel Katz, to confine Palestinians on the ruins of a corner of Gaza.

Trump would deserve accolades for truly ending the conflict and enabling the rebuilding of Gaza. But the conflict is unlikely to truly end, and the Gulf Arab states will be reluctant to pony up the billions needed for reconstruction, for a mere return to the apartheid that Israel has imposed on Palestinians in the occupied territory. A Nobel-worthy end to the conflict would be a Palestinian state living side-by-side with an Israeli one.

Netanyahu has devoted his career to avoiding that possibility. The massive settlement enterprise is designed to preclude it. But because none of the alternatives – mass expulsion, endless apartheid or equal rights in a single state – is morally or politically viable, a Palestinian state is the best option.

It is difficult to imagine Trump pushing for a Palestinian state. He has appointed an ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, whose vision for a state is to put it anywhere but in Palestine. But if Trump’s quest for accolades, his bid for the history books, takes priority in his mind, which is entirely possible, we should not discount this turn of events.

Trump turned on Putin last week when he proclaimed: “We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.” That describes Netanyahu to a T.

Why does Trump let Netanyahu keep playing him the way Putin did? How can Trump proclaim himself the Master Negotiator when he can’t manage to use his enormous leverage over Netanyahu to get him to stop bombing and starving Palestinian civilians? Is Trump not sophisticated enough to move from real-estate deals to international negotiations?

I’m sure that Trump would hate to be asked these questions. The sycophants around him won’t. Others can and should. Trump’s fragile ego, his insatiable need for praise, may be the Palestinians’ best chance of turning him in a constructive direction.