Russia in Global Affairs

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States makes Israel the first country to conduct an official visit since Donald Trump took office. With a host of headlines shaping the future of the Middle East, the two leaders spoke to the press, announcing several key points. Among the most important topics they highlighted in their statements:

1. The second wave of exodus of the Palestinian people is imminent.
2. A new, intensified economic war campaign against Iran is on the horizon; if it does not achieve its objectives, a military conflict may follow.
3. The spirit of Abrahamic peace will resurface, expanding to include new Arab nations.that would change the face of the Middle East.

Netanyahu commended Trump’s “unconventional thinking” “thinking out of the box” and lauded his courage in taking bold steps that no other American leader has dared to undertake. This refers to both his past^[1] and current decisions^[2], including the controversial proposal to relocate approximately one and a half million Palestinians out of Gaza.

Trump asserted that we must learn from history; «history cant keep repeating itself»  In light of this, Trump aims to make his own mark on history through his proposals for the Middle East. While I don’t want to dampen his enthusiasm for what he believes, a straightforward examination of history reveals that Trump has not introduced anything genuinely new. Instead, his approach follows a conventional path, as dictated by the previous protocols of the western hegemonic thinking for engaging with the Middle Eastern issues

Let’s compare the past with the present to draw expected conclusions for the future. During World War I, the French and British colonial powers promised the Levant that they would grant independence if the region revolted against the Ottoman Empire. In fact, the Great Arab Revolt occurred, successfully expelling the «sick man» from their lands. However, instead of fulfilling their promise of independence, in 1916 they partitioned the Levant into distinct entities—specifically Syria, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon—and placed them under French and British mandates. Only one year later, in 1917, they conceived the idea of establishing Israel through the Balfour Declaration. Meanwhile, the Arabs found themselves entangled in an endless maze of internal problems, regional challenges, and international colonialism in their countries. They were deceived again after World War II. In 1947, Syria gained its independence from the French mandate. The following year, in 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel was declared in Palestine, as per UN Resolution 181. Consequently, the first Arab-Israeli war broke out, the first Nakba occurred, and the Palestinians were forcibly displaced to Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and the West Bank.

History shows that every time Syria undergoes a critical transition phase, it inevitably coincides with a significant change in Palestine.

And today, it seems as though history is echoing its warning once again, reminding us that Syria has been liberated from the 54 years ruling Baath Party and the dictatorial Assad regime. In Palestine, the prospects of another calamity – the second Nakba/Palestaina exudes – are unfolding, as preparations are underway to displace the people of Gaza, potentially forcing them outside their homeland. The threat of mass displacement and uprooting of Palestinians from their ancestral lands remains an ever-present concern.

How can we claim that Trump is thinking outside the box when everything he proposes has already been tried by others since World War I and II? The answer lies in Aleppo, Damascus, and directs our attention to Gaza. where many analysts are still searching for a satisfactory explanation for the rapid collapse of the ruling regime in Syria, which appears more as a transfer of power than a removal or uprooting of the government. Observers have speculated about the timing, attributing it to various internal,^[3] regional,^[4] and international factors. However, recent statements by the American and Israeli presidents have provided us with new insights into these complexities. Notably, these statements illuminate why the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham group (HTS)—designated as a terrorist organization by countries worldwide and the United Nations—has emerged in power in Syria, and why Ahmed al-Sharaa/ al-Julani, a figure with a notorious history of terrorism, has become the interim president of Syria.

When analyzing the timing of Assad’s downfall in Syria, it becomes apparent that it followed the execution of a region-specific plan, particularly concerning Palestine. As a result, it was necessary for Ahmed al-Sharaa/al-Jolani and his group, who are listed as terrorists on both international and UN lists, to seize control of Syria. This would allow Trump to leverage their position by negotiating with Ahmed al-Sharaa to have his group removed from the terrorist lists in exchange for a peace agreement with Israel. In addition, to avoid reclaiming the Golan Heights and the territories annexed by Israel following the collapse of the Assad regime, as well as to facilitate the resettlement of Palestinians whom he intended to evacuate from Gaza.

Although Syria has not yet been mentioned among the countries proposed to receive displaced Palestinians, we can infer its potential inclusion from Trump’s recent remarks about countries willing to accept residents from Gaza. He stated that “many leaders have contacted us and expressed their desire to shelter residents fleeing from Gaza.»

This is particularly significant given that Egypt and Jordan have publicly rejected the displacement of Palestinians through a unified Arab stance. However, the new Syria, with its new leadership, new identity, and new regional role, dispatched from its axis of resistance past could pursue this for several reasons;

First, Ahmed al-Sharaa/al-Julani and the HTS group are in urgent need of removal from terrorist lists to gain international recognition and facilitate international economic engagement. The upcoming opportunity will test his ability to advocate for their removal. If he succeeds, both Ahmed al-Sharaa/al-Julani and HTS will secure American international endorsement as well as Israeli regional backing, ensuring the stability of their rule in Syria.

Second, Palestinians in Syria generally enjoy rights equivalent to those enjoyed by Syrians, particularly with regard to property ownership, employment, education, and access to health care. In addition, unconfirmed reports circulating in the media indicated that Sharaa has informed the US administration of his approval of granting citizenship to Palestinians.

Third: The government of Ahmed al-Sharaa can craft a well-articulated discourse to convince the Syrian people of their religious and national duty to stand with the Palestinian people. Given the  exhaustion of the Syrian people, remnants of dictatorial rule having drained their resources, this discourse is likely to be met with acceptance rather than rejection.

Fourth, Syria needs approximately $400 billion for reconstruction; therefore, the issues concerning Syria and Palestine might be addressed together. This approach is particularly relevant given that much of Syrian territory has been devastated by the 13-year conflict. Moreover, the Americans appear indifferent to the displaced Palestinians, prioritizing the expulsion of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip without regard for their destination.

Fifth: The responsibility of agreeing to open the borders and allowing Palestinians to be evacuated is a historical burden that no Arab country can bear. because that would be a complicit with liquidation of Palestinian case. However, The new Syria under Al-Sharaa president could potentially take on this challenge. This may explain why Al-Sharaa previously indicated that the establishment of a new constitution and elections would require three to four years—timing that aligns with the conclusion of Trump’s current term. The role that Ahmed Al-Sharaa and his administration are set to play is clearly well thought out.

Sixth: History shows that the Levant has been reshaped every century, resulting in the loss of parts of its territory. In the 19th century, the region was divided into Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, and Jordan, while Turkey annexed the Sanjak of Alexandretta. In the 20th century, Israel occupied the Golan Heights, Shabaa lands in South of Lebanon, and in the 21st century, Israel expanded its presence into Syrian territory and southern Lebanon as well. Currently , Syria is already divided into areas controlled by different factions: HTS, the new government in Syria, the SDF^[5] in the northeast, and various local forces led by the Druze in the south and the Ahmad al-Awda forces. Consequently, the future of a unified Syrian territory does not look promising.

President Trump may suggest cede parts of Syrian territory to accommodate the Palestinian exodus.

This addresses the question of how HTS  swiftly took over Aleppo and reached Damascus with little to no resistance. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is internationally designated as a terrorist organization, is positioned to potentially overthrow the Syrian regime. This scenario provided the U.S. administration with leverage to negotiate with HTS concessions, such as its removal from terrorist lists, lifting sanctions, and opening up the economy for reconstruction efforts. According to Trump and Netanyahu logic, everything is calculated. Assad was not able to make this concession to remain in power, since the Iranian deal was not yet ready. This brings us to the second title of Trump and Netanyahu’s statements, which is the Iranian file.  Trump said that he wanted to exert: “maximum pressure  policy on the Iranian regime, and we will once again enforce the most aggressive possible sanctions, drive Iranian oil exports to zero and diminish the regime’s capacity to fund terror throughout the region and throughout the world.” It represents an announcement of economic war against Iran; however, it is uncertain what further measures can be sanctioned, given that the US seems to have already exhausted all available sanctions options to obtain the desired result. However, Netanyahu’s statements were more ferocious, and it seems that his appetite is open to pounce on Iran, as he said that;

“We both committed to rolling back Iran’s aggression in the region and ensuring that Iran never develops nuclear weapons,… Israel will end the war by winning the war. Israel’s victory will be America’s victory.”

Ending the war sends a clear message to Tehran that it does not necessarily mean a diplomatic solution is possible.

Especially that he displayed that the balance of power in the region currently is in favour of Israel:

“Israel has never been stronger and the Tehran terror axis has never been weaker, but as we discussed mr president, to secure our future and bring peace to our region we have to finish the job.”

In addition to that he gave the hostility a personal dimension when he said;

“We also see eye to eye on Iran, the same Iran that tried to kill us both. They tried to kill you Mr.president, they tried through their proxies to kill me”  

Netanyahu gave the full recipe for war, when he added a historical context to it; “by doing this we have defeated some of the Americann’s worst enemies, we took out terrorists, who are wanted for decades, for shading rivers of the Americans blood including the blood of 241 marines murdered in Beirut^[6].”

With the religious and a holy war dimension of the conflict, Netanyahu has formulated a comprehensive strategy to wage war against the next target- Iran: when he said:

 “the Bible says that the people of Israel shall rise like a lioness”

“Today the roar of the lion of Judah is heard loudly throughout the Middle East.”

But Netanyahu did not complete the verse which says: «not resting until they devour their prey and drink the blood of the slain.”

This indicates Israel and the U.S. are determined to complete their mission to dismantle Iran and eliminate the last stronghold of the resistance of the axis of evil in their rhetoric. This discourse  evokes memories of the U.S. President George W. Bush’s addresses following the events of September 11, 2001, and prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The third theme of the statements pertains to the Abrahamic Peace Initiative. The American President announced that additional countries are expected to join the peace group alongside Israel. Given the current regional dynamics, the first country identified for this purpose is the new Syria, under the leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa/al-Jolani. Consequently, he has swiftly declared himself the interim president of Syria, asserting revolutionary legitimacy backed by members of the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS)^[7]It is anticipated that Lebanon might follow suit. Thus, Trump could then say that he achieved peace among all the “Sykes-Picot nations”; Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, the latter of which signed the Agreement in 1994. Palestine signed the Oslo Accords in 1993-1995. Consequently, Hamas is likely to become isolated in the Arab world and will have little choice but to submit. Following a series of normalization agreements represented by Abraham Accords between Israel by the Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan (2020-2021), peace with Saudi Arabia is anticipated as a next step.

This is how Trump envisions resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the ultimate goal of tangling these countries to major economic projects, limiting their ability to make sovereign decisions or maneuver independently.

Thus, we see that history is poised to repeat itself, albeit with changes in parties, players, visions, and roles. Even if Trump believes he is charting a new course, he is, in fact, adhering to the long-standing hegemonic Western perspective on the Arab region.

For those who argue that Trump’s ideas are illogical and impractical, I encourage them to reflect on history. The establishment of Israel in the Middle East began as an idea and a promise, and today Israel stands as the most powerful country in the Middle East and the only to possess nuclear weapons. So, what is so unusual about Trump’s proposal to relocate the people of the Gaza Strip? After all, history repeats itself, yet we often find ourselves deaf to its whispers, pretending that the lessons of the past remain shrouded in mystery, when in truth, it is evident.