Can ‘Realist’ Trump Pull Off Gaza Ceasefire?

By Michael Jansen

During his ongoing visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates, US President Donald Trump seeks to focus on business opportunities and investment in the US rather than address the negative political realities to which he contributed during his first term (2017-2021).

At that time, he dismissed the two-state solution in favour of “The Deal of the Century” which would give Palestinians a degree of autonomy within Israel. He defunded UNRWA, recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the US embassy there, and said the US no longer considers Israeli settlements illegal overturning a 1978 policy. The fate of the refugees, Jerusalem, and settlers were meant to be negotiated under the two-state solution by the sides under the 1993 Oslo accord. He closed the US consulate in occupied East Jerusalem which served Palestinians and the PLO office in Washington. Trump recognized Israeli annexation of Syria’s occupied Golan.

Trump began his second term by calling for the expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza which would be redeveloped as a Middle East Riviera instead of exerting pressure on Israel to end the Gaza war and enable its reconstruction. Under Trump’s real estate venture Gazan Palestinians were supposed to settle in Egypt and Jordan, which along with all the Arabs flatly rejected this proposal. Egypt drew up a counterproposal to reconstruct devastated Gaza while its population stays put.

His resort scheme has angered the Arab public from the Gulf to the Atlantic. His call for Saudi Arabia to establish relations with Israel has been rejected as Riyadh has said it will normalise when there is a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem.

Since Trump made Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination in 2017 during his first term, the region has changed significantly by pivoting to the East. Saudi Arabia and the Emirates have cultivated ties with Russia – Riyadh’s partner on oil production and pricing – and China which buys Gulf oil and exports billions of dollars in goods to the Gulf. The Emirates, Egypt and Iran joined BRICS (the grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) while Saudi Arabia applied but did not follow through. China mediated Saudi-Iranian reconciliation. This has ended Iran’s isolation in the region.

On the positive side, early in this term Trump opened talks with Iran over its nuclear programme to replace the 2015 deal from which he withdrew in 2018. A fifth round of talks is expected. Although Trump wants to be a peacemaker, he has threatened war if the talks fail.

As a peacemaker, Trump bombed Yemen heavily to force Yemen’s Houthis to end attacks on international commercial and naval vessels in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. The Houthis and US agreed to end this confrontation. Trump has not, however, halted Houthi drone and ballistic missile attacks on Israel which the Houthis say will stop if Israel observes a ceasefire or ends the war on Gaza.

Trump has not planned to stop in Israel during this Gulf tour, indicating that there is some distance between him and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He has not only refused to ceasefire in Gaza but also maintained a ten-week blockade of the strip. He could have done both to ease Trump’s swing around the Gulf where Gaza is high on the agendas of the rulers and public. Since Netanyahu has carried on with his Gaza war, Trump has ignored him when resuming talks with Iran on limiting its nuclear programme in exchange for lifting sanctions and agreeing to a ceasefire with Yemen’s Houthi. The ceasefire has been welcomed by Washington’s Arab allies, particularly Saudi Arabia which had been urging an end to US attacks on Yemen before Trump began his tour.

Without Israeli involvement, the US has also negotiated with Hamas over the release on Monday of US-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander. For Trump, this is a greatly desired success in the US. In Israel, families of hostages who are not US-Israel dual citizens fear their relatives will be forgotten by Netanyahu who is determined to not only continue with the war but also to expand it once Trump departs from the region. Hostage families are not alone in their suspicions. A majority (54 per cent) of Israelis said that the war was being driven by personal rather than security reasons. Only 21 per cent agreed with Netanyahu’s prioritisation of eliminating Hamas over rescuing the hostages. A March poll showed 70 per cent of Israelis wanted Netanyahu to resign.

He has adopted this stance for several reasons. First, right-wingers in his coalition have vowed to pull out if he ends the war. Second, once the war is over, Netanyahu will be called upon to account for lax Israeli security in the south where Hamas breached the fence on October 7th, 2023, killed 1,200 Israelis and visitors and abducted another 251. There was no excuse for laxity. Young female Israeli soldiers deployed as “watchers” along that part of the border with Gaza, warned repeatedly that Hamas was conducting drills and manoeuvres ahead of an attack. Their warnings were not taken serioiusly by senior Israeli officers. Some of these women were killed and some captured. Third, as long as the war is being waged, Netanyahu will not have to explain how lightly armed Hamas fighters have managed to carry on the fight while the mighty Israeli army and air force levelled Gaza and killed 53,000 Palestinians. Netanyahu has a lot of explaining to do.

Jansen is a columnist for the Jordan Times

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Oslo: Strangling The Dove

By Dr Khairi Janbek

When we do a recap of the Oslo Agreements, they were a series of accords between Israel and the PLO signed in 1993. It was a process meant to lead to a permanent settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict within five year, including decisions on borders, refugees, security, Jerusalem and settlements.

But right from the start, voices were divided over the process, while for others, the whole idea had a built-in mechanism for failure from the start. The Palestinians started seeing that the Oslo Agreements were neither ending the establishment of Israeli settlements nor the end to occupation, while for the Israelis it didn’t seem to end their security concerns.

Indeed, it is pointless to think which comes first, the chicken or the egg, because two different fears and logistics persisted from the start.  But also, it is important to think about the circumstances which brought about the idea of launching the process, and which did put the PLO in a tough position for being perceived as supporting the wrong side which lost; Iraq.

The room for manoeuvre for the late Yasser Arafat was very tight as he stood to lose the legitimacy of the PLO.

What one is trying to say is that, right from the start, outside official circles, many on the Palestinian side were against Oslo probably as many as was the case on the Israeli side.

The gradual erosion of Oslo mainly through the continued Israeli actions kept feeding extremism on both sides.  Nevertheless, the concept was not revoked by any Israeli government because of its effect on Arab public opinion, pressure which is likely to block any peace initiative. Moreover, the international atmosphere was not conducive for such an initiative.

Having said that, one cannot claim that the international atmosphere is currently more indifferent to the abrogation of the Oslo, rather Israel seems to have more leeway in undertaking unilateral actions with more impunity.

Of course, it is not international law that can be counted on in this respect but rather, at least for the time being Donald Trump’s disapproval of the idea of annexing the West Bank by Israel. This is despite the fact that all the Israeli actions of dividing the West Bank from north to south first and currently from west to east, goes unnoticed. But the important thing has been till now, and don’t say the magic word, end of Oslo.

However, the recent development is that Israeli political parties, the partners in Netanyahu’s government are all pushing openly, for the abrogation of the Oslo agreements and cancelling out all the Israeli obligations towards it.

One can only say such an open declaration is a matter of principle by the Israeli government, because the changes on the ground are there for all to see. One supposes all parties are playing for time to see the end of the Palestinian national aspirations.

The columnist is a Jordanian writer based in Paris, France

Continue reading
How Trump Burned Western Friendships

By Jassem Al-Azzawi

Something remarkable is happening today in the corridors of western powers. America’s closest allies are no longer whispering their frustrations behind closed doors; they are now shouting them from the podiums of their parliaments and in press conferences. And US president Donald Trump is responding in kind. The transatlantic alliance, painstakingly built over eight decades, is now fracturing in a live broadcast.

The immediate cause is the American-Israeli war on Iran, launched on 28 February, 2026, without consulting NATO partners, United Nations, or even Washington’s closest friends. But the rift runs deeper than a single conflict; it reflects a strategy that is indifferent to its allies, or even openly contemptuous of them.

“The Americans clearly lack a strategy.”

The breaking point was starkly illustrated in the frank remarks made by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz to students in Marsberg, northwest Germany. Merz likened the conflict with Iran to past US failures in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“It’s clear the Americans don’t have a strategic plan,” he said, describing Washington’s approach as “ill-conceived.”

He went even further, suggesting that the US was being “humiliated” by Tehran’s negotiating tactics which is a stunning public accusation from a Chancellor who, until recently, was one of Washington’s most hawkish European allies.

Trump reacted furiously, writing on his TruthSocial platform that Merz “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” and threatening to reduce the number of US troops stationed in Germany, currently at 36,436. He then told the German chancellor to mind his own business:

“The Chancellor of Germany should spend more time ending the war between Russia and Ukraine, where he has been completely ineffective, and fixing his own battered country… rather than meddling in the affairs of those who are eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat.”

This verbal sparring is transcending all diplomatic norms and is shakening the foundations of the US-European axis.

Starmer: “I’m fed up,” he says publicly.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer invested considerable political capital in cultivating a working relationship with Trump, but that investment has now proven costly. When asked about Trump’s threats to destroy Iran, Starmer told ITV:

“These are not words I would ever use, because I speak from our British values ​​and principles.”

The harshest language came when Starmer placed Trump alongside Vladimir Putin as partners in causing British economic hardship, telling Talking Points:

“I’m fed up with seeing families and businesses across the country struggling with fluctuating energy bills because of Putin’s or Trump’s actions around the world.”

On British military involvement, Starmer was unequivocal: “I will not change my mind, and I will not back down. It is not in our national interest to join this war, and we will not do so.” Trump rewarded this initial stance with a statement to The Sun newspaper: “Starmer has not been cooperative. The relationship is clearly not what it used to be,” he said.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund underscored the scale of the material risks by lowering its 2026 growth forecast for Britain to 0.8 percent. This is a direct consequence of the energy shock Trump’s trade war has inflicted on British households.

Sanchez and Carney: Europe and Canada Draw a Line

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has emerged as the most vocal European leader in his criticism of Trump and his uncompromising stance. After Trump threatened to sever all trade ties with Madrid following Spain’s refusal to allow US troops to use the Rota and Morón air bases, Sanchez did not back down. When the ceasefire was announced, his judgment was scathing:

“A ceasefire is always good news, but this temporary relief cannot make us forget the chaos, destruction, and lives lost. The Spanish government will not applaud those who set the world ablaze just because they have finally appeared with a bucket of water.”

For his part, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney offered a broader structural indictment, stating in a speech at the Lowy Institute in Sydney:

“Geostrategically, dominant powers are increasingly acting without restraint or respect for international norms and laws, while others bear the consequences.”

He described the war as “a failure of the international order,” adding that “the United States and Israel acted without engaging the United Nations or consulting allies, including Canada.”

The alarm bells were not only ringing abroad; Senate Democrats launched a fierce campaign to reclaim congressional authority over a war they deemed illegal, unauthorized, and a diplomatic disaster.

Senator Tim Kaine’s diagnosis was accurate: “There was no clear justification, no clear plan, and no effort to engage allies or Congress. When you make diplomacy impossible, you make war inevitable.”

Senator Chris Murphy was even more blunt.

“We have never seen a foreign conflict so publicly mismanaged. We have become a laughingstock around the world, while hurting Americans who are now paying billions more in fuel prices.” Senator Tammy Duckworth linked the current disaster to America’s post-World War II pattern, saying:

“Our duty is to ensure that our nation never again slides into an endless, self-serving war.” Despite this, all six war powers resolutions introduced by the Democrats failed due to Republican loyalty to Trump, even as the war cost the lives of 13 Americans in its first month and the price of a gallon of gasoline reached $4.30.

Time for reckoning has come…

Whether Trump’s antagonism toward allies is a strategic dismantling or simply the impulsiveness of a leader who confuses aggression with strength, the result is the same. He threatened to withdraw from NATO, imposed trade sanctions on Spain, threatened to withdraw troops from Germany, and pushed the “special relationship” with Britain to the brink of collapse. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s warning also came to light.

Trump will “re-examine” Washington’s commitments to allies who did not support the war, as a declaration of “conditional friendship.”

America’s friends are being pushed away, its adversaries are watching, and the West, for the first time since 1945, is genuinely unsure whether it can rely on Washington.

Jassem Al-Azzawi is an Iraqi writer and journalist who contributed this article to the Arabic website, Al Rai Al Youm and appears in Crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

An Egyptian House in a German Town

An Egyptian House in a German Town

Nakba Art

Nakba Art

Palestinian Population Tops 15.5 Million

Palestinian Population Tops 15.5 Million

‘All I Want is to Bury My Family in Dignity’  

‘All I Want is to Bury My Family in Dignity’  

Israeli Army: 18 Soldiers Dead, 910 Injured in Lebanon

Israeli Army: 18 Soldiers Dead, 910 Injured in Lebanon

Watch Out: Israel is Secretly Filling The West Bank With Settlements

Watch Out: Israel is Secretly Filling The West Bank With Settlements