search
Leo Benderski

Trump’s Gaza Plan: Implications for Israel and the region

A destroyed neighborhood in Gaza (Image from Pixabay)
A destroyed neighborhood in Gaza (Image from Pixabay)
On January 26th, 2025, one week after the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas came into effect, Donald Trump commented on the long-term future of Gaza. He proposed relocating most Gazans to Jordan and Egypt, suggesting this could serve as a permanent solution for the Palestinians living in the narrow strip.
Although the idea of Jordanian or Egyptian responsibility for the Palestinians has been floating around in Israeli political discourse for decades, Trump’s statement marked its first endorsement by an American president. Despite many aspects, such as human rights implications, that certainly must be considered when evaluating this idea, I will critique it solely from the perspective of Israeli national security interests.
The idea of combating Palestinian terrorism by removing them from Israel’s border and offering them a better life under more stable governments seems to be appealing. However, this solution could undermine Israel’s national security in the long term.
A common analytical mistake, especially in the West, is overemphasizing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the central issue for Israel and the Middle East. Regional stability is more dependent on broader, structural challenges, such as Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, Egypt’s economic fragility, or the Muslim Brotherhood’s threat to moderate Arab regimes. These issues are only marginally linked to the Palestinians.
Especially Jordan’s and Egypt’s stability is critical for Israel. Prior to the 1978 peace treaty with Egypt, Israel spent more than 20% of its GDP on defense, hampering economic growth. The subsequent decades of peace with its largest neighbor allowed Israel to transform into a modern, first-world state. Meanwhile, a stable Jordan buffers Israel and blocks Iranian weapon smuggling into the West Bank.
However, these regimes, while appearing stable externally, face significant international challenges from radical, Islamist elements. Jordanian public opinion is influenced by radical Palestinians and broad Muslim Brotherhood support. The danger of instability is not hypothetical; in 1970, the PLO nearly overthrew the Hashemite monarchy in a civil war. Egypt, meanwhile, briefly experienced the disastrous consequences of Muslim Brotherhood rule in the early 2010s before President El-Sisi’s military coup restored stability. If Egypt—with its large, modern army—were to fall into the hands of radical Islamists, the region could face the prospect of renewed Arab-Israeli wars led by a hostile Egypt.
The influx of more than a million radicalized Palestinians into Jordan and Egypt would pose a major challenge to the legitimacy and stability of their moderate governments. This is the crux of the issue. While Israel can deal with occasional rocket fire from Gaza, a hostile Egypt or Jordan would represent an exponentially greater danger. Such a scenario could fundamentally shift the security balance in the region, undermining hard-won stability. The current situation is far from perfect, but as the saying goes, you sometimes accept the rain to avoid the flood.
In conclusion, while Trump’s proposal might offer a superficial solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its long-term consequences could undermine Israel’s security by destabilizing the moderate regimes in Jordan and Egypt. Preserving the stability of these neighbors is paramount for Israel’s strategic interests and relative regional stability.
About the Author
Leo Benderski is a university student from Germany with a strong interest in Israeli national security and Middle Eastern geopolitics. He actively follows regional developments, engages with expert analyses, and contributes thoughtful perspectives on strategic issues.
Related Topics
Related Posts