JISS-Colonel (res.) Dr. Eran Lerman: Translating Trump’s Disruptive Diplomacy into a New Reality in Gaza
Link to more from JISS
The turmoil caused by President Donald Trump’s statements regarding the future of Gaza – which include the eviction of its population, American governance, the creation of a “Middle Eastern Riviera,” and an ultimatum demanding the release of all hostages – highlights two key issues on which Trump’s positions appear self-contradictory. The call for the release of all hostages (and hence perhaps an end to the war) seems at odds with the administration’s firmly held view that Hamas must no longer be the ruling power in Gaza. At the same time, the call for Palestinians to leave Gaza contradicts the traditional commitment to America’s Arab friends (and clients). The stability of the regimes in Egypt and Jordan, if pushed to take the Gazans and punished for their refusal, could be endangered – despite King Abdullah’s efforts to mollify Trump during his visit to Washington. The future of their peace treaties with Israel would also be threatened. The Saudis too have responded abruptly, reiterating their support for Palestinian demands. Consequently, the region has been thrust into a state of crisis.
However, it is not too late to translate Trump’s disruptive messages into a workable long-term strategy – if it is properly sequenced:
- If Hamas, facing an all-out threat, would reverse its position on freezing hostage releases, negotiations could resume in the coming weeks (given that Trump’s ultimatum need not be taken literally). This need not preclude a later effort to end Hamas’s rule—whether through diplomatic or (more likely) military means. No “guarantee” given to Hamas under the duress of hostage-taking needs to be honored; this is particularly true under Trump’s administration compared to Biden’s. If Egypt can be effectively persuaded to prevent the rearmament of Hamas through its territory, there is no need to rush toward the ultimate result – time will be on Israel’s side, provided it acts in close coordination with the United States.
- Trump’s key Arab interlocutors – including King Abdullah II of Jordan, who met with him in Washington; Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia – are likely to continue rejecting his proposal for eviction but could and should be encouraged to develop an alternative, practical vision for ending Hamas’s rule in Gaza. This may involve a Multinational Authority taking control of the Gaza Strip under American leadership (not “ownership” – again, a term that need not be taken literally).
- The timeframe of the hostage deal, if fully executed, should be leveraged to prepare for the implementation of this complex plan – while Israel can also use it to prepare in detail for the resumption of hostilities, should Hamas refuse to hand over control. Tactics must therefore differ from the raids employed by the IDF in Gaza in recent months and should reflect a concept of “take, hold, and hand over” to a transitional government.
Amidst all this, the primary focus must be on negotiating with Iran from a position of strength, as this – more than any developments in Gaza – will shape the region’s future for years to come.
Contradictory Messages Regarding the Future of the Fighting in Gaza
President Trump and his envoy, Steve Witkoff, played a pivotal role in advocating for the hostage deal and setting it in motion. Trump’s blunt demand on February 9 for the immediate release of all hostages – warning that “all hell would break loose” otherwise – can be interpreted as part of his broader desire to see global conflicts resolved, as reflected in his parallel messages to Putin and Zelensky and his expressed aspiration for a Nobel Peace Prize. This aligns with Trump’s public persona and his self-characterization as a sophisticated and astute deal-maker. Paradoxically, it also coincides with Hamas’ preference for an expedited end to the war.
Simultaneously, the President and key figures in his administration, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, expressed sharp criticism of Hamas – Trump referred to them as “tough guys” – underscoring that the terror group must not remain in power in Gaza. Trump’s exposure to the distressing visual evidence from October 7, prior to his meeting with Netanyahu, may have played a role in shaping his stance and intensified his resolve to eliminate the threat posed by Hamas, a sentiment further heightened by the condition of the three hostages released on February 8, 2025.
However, the current reality – in which Hamas not only persists but also claims to have achieved a victory for the “resistance” while using the orchestrated scenes of the hostages’ release to demonstrate its hold on power – is in apparent contradiction with the objective of removing them from Gaza. It remains to be defined how, when, and by whom Hamas will be forced to accept defeat, facing the choice of destruction or exile, akin to Arafat’s experience in Lebanon in 1982. In the absence of a definitive plan, this hope remains to be translated into actionable steps over time. This would need to supersede any guarantees Hamas might secure to conclude the war. Ultimately, Trump’s vision of evicting the Palestinian population from the ruins of Gaza can only be realized if Hamas’ rule is dismantled and the population’s consent is obtained, as a forced eviction is out of the question.
Contradictory Messages Regarding “Eviction” Versus Regional Stability
Meanwhile, pro-Western Arab regimes have reacted sharply to the idea of removal of the Gazan population. The letter sent by seven Arab Foreign Ministers to Marco Rubio emphasized the need for dialogue; a sentiment echoed by King Abdullah of Jordan during his fraught meeting with Trump on February 11. Nevertheless, the message was clear. President Sisi has postponed his planned visit to Washington, and the discussions between his Foreign Minister and Rubio were reportedly terse. Furthermore, Saudi positions toward Israel have hardened. Trump’s vision, which approaches Gaza from the perspective of a seasoned real estate developer, undeniably contradicts the traditional U.S. commitment to stability in both Egypt and Jordan. If faced with an influx of displaced Palestinians, this would starkly contrast with their national interests and obligations to Arab solidarity, potentially endangering their very survival.
Sisi’s regime has forcefully repressed the Muslim Brotherhood, yet public sentiment in Egypt remains deeply hostile toward Israel and the United States, with social networks rife with calls to utilize force to deter Israel. Perceived surrender to American pressure could trigger an internal crisis. A comparable situation prevails in Jordan, where the majority of the population is of Palestinian origin. Accepting a sizable number of evacuees from Gaza, beyond the 2,000 sick children the King has offered to take in, may undermine the legitimacy of the Hashemite monarchy. The King was compelled to convey this to Trump, despite the latter’s known aversion to being confronted with negative responses to his demands. Sisi would likely do the same if he visits Washington.
Israel cannot observe with equanimity as a dangerous rift emerges between the U.S. and the two peace partners with which it shares its longest borders. Peace with both nations has long been a structural aspect of Israel’s national security doctrine. Many in Egypt suspect that Israel is behind Trump’s proposals and have called for the abrogation of the peace treaty, even as the Egyptian leadership continues to uphold and extol its benefits. Rhetorical escalation could easily escalate into more significant tensions. In Jordan, Iranian subversion is already actively at work and may exploit the tensions with Trump – particularly the perception that the King has been humiliated—to threaten the regime’s stability, especially if he is pressured to accept a sizeable number of evacuees.
A descent into conflict with Egypt, a nation of 110 million with 12 standing, American-armed army divisions, a formidable navy, and a large, modern air force, would be an act of folly.. Should the extensive eastern frontier ignite as well, Israel may confront a perilous challenge.
A punitive severance of U.S. aid to Egypt and Jordan, due to their reluctance to implement the President’s vision, would pose a severe problem for Israel. The Trump (and Musk) team is in any event eager to cut foreign aid and disband USAID, but this may jeopardize the viability of the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and the 1994 Jordan-Israel Peace Treaty. For decades, Israeli governments have viewed U.S. aid to Egypt and Jordan – both military and economic – as a stabilizing factor preserving the peace – an interest of both countries. A “perfect storm” in Washington that undermines this support could have detrimental effects on vital Israeli interests.
A Sequenced Design for Resolving the Contradictions
Despite the tensions and contradictions described, a plan of action can emerge to resolve or mitigate these issues while serving the interests of all key players. This plan would need to be modular and implemented step by step:
- In the immediate stage, Israel can afford to take the risks involved in proceeding with the second and final part of the hostage deal. It is possible that Hamas, to secure its leverage, might refuse to go ahead with the release all hostages, despite Trump’s blunt threats:, in which case Israel would, by necessity, revert to intense warfare. However, even if the deal is actualized at the cost of releasing murderous terrorists and evacuating key areas of the Gaza Strip, the position of the Trump administration would still allow for the option of resuming the war, if this were to emerge as the only way to dismantle Hamas in Gaza. There is no need to fear that the passage of time will allow Hamas to shift the balance of power in its favor; if Egypt commits – through practical discussions with Washington—to preventing arms and goods from reaching Hamas, the IDF will gain the upper hand by thoroughly preparing for the next intense phase of operations.
- In exchange for setting aside the notion of removing the Palestinians from Gaza, the U.S. would be in a position to demand in no uncertain terms that Egypt guarantee no arms or provisions flow to Hamas. There would be no more tacit approvals for Ibrahim al-‘Arjani, the tribal leader in northern Sinai, who for years presided over the smuggling of goods of all kinds. Instead, Egypt and its Arab partners would be required to present an alternative vision for Gaza.
- Such a vision would not represent “American possession” but rather a multinational effort—not “International,” i.e., UN-mandated – led by the United States, supported by it, and involving a limited American presence (in management, intelligence, and logistics). It would necessitate close coordination and a “protocol” for various scenarios and responses with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the Israeli intelligence community. The full preparation and implementation of this complex strategy would require several months, during which the hostage deal could be finalized, creating better conditions for a new type of military engagement in Gaza, based on the so-called “take, hold and hand over” model – replacing extensive IDF raids and retreats.
All these actions must occur while the focus of both Israeli and American efforts shifts toward addressing the challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear project. This would require close communication among Israeli, Arab, and American national security professionals to transform the President’s disruptive diplomacy into a coherent operational plan.
JISS Policy Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family.
Photo: IMAGO / APAimages
