As activists rally against US President Joe Biden over the issue of Palestinian rights, focus has turned back, with high intensity, to those who crafted the Middle East policies during Donald Trump’s presidency. Their notable suggestions have been to drive Palestinians out of Gaza Strip and initiate Israel’s annexation of the West Bank.
These propositions, which exceed the pro-Israeli bias of the Trump administration’s two-state solution, were made by Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, and his former Israeli ambassador, David Friedman. Initially, Trump appeared to be quite inconsistent with the policies he would implement, in his dialogue with a right-leaning Israeli publication. However, he did mention a planned meeting with Friedman to discuss further about the annexation of the West Bank by Israel.
Contrary to causing outright panic, some Palestinian leaders opine that Biden is the real menace, and that the rhetoric from Trump’s opposition, the Republicans, does not equate to policies they believe have culminated in the death of numerous Palestinians.
“A second term under Trump does not strike fear anymore”, expressed Abed Ayoub, the director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who has been rallying Arab-American and liberal voters in Michigan. Ayoub hinted that if Trump’s re-election were to occur as activists rejected Biden, this might push the Democratic Party to re-evaluate its stand towards Israel.
The opinions stated by Friedman and Kushner have turned heads. They sparked widespread notice first at a Harvard University gathering, where Kushner, a real estate developer, stated the potential value of Gazan waterfront property. He also proposed the relocation of Palestinians from the war-torn area.
He explained, somewhat regretfully, that from an Israeli viewpoint, his approach would be to evacuate the people, tidy things up, and potentially relocate the Palestinian civilians to Israel’s arid southern Negev desert.
Kushner’s expulsion recommendation was seemingly echoed by Friedman, who criticized Vice President Kamala Harris on social media for asserting that the Palestinians, approximately 1.5 million in number, who have found refuge in the Southern Gazan city of Rafah, would have no other place to go if Israel attacked. Friedman proposed that the Palestinians in Gaza always had the option to leave the country.
The maps were analysed by her, inferring that Rafah’s inhabitants had no escape, according to what Friedman had written. He quipped that the map must have been significantly small, noticeably omitting Egypt and other Arab nations.
Later, when Palestinian rights supporters criticised him, Friedman explained that his intention was to ensure the temporary safety of civilians during the period of warfare.
“You appear to welcome their suffering simply to preserve your antagonistic narrative against Israel,” Friedman expressed through social media.
At the same time, Friedman has been promoting a vision for the future of Judea and Samaria – a strategy that employs biblical terms for the occupied West Bank to defend what he believes is Israel’s entitlement to annex the area. This territory was meant to form the majority of a future independent Palestinian state according to established US policy. Since 1967, the West Bank has been under military control.
Last month, presenting his strategy at the National Religious Broadcasters conference in Nashville, Tennessee, Friedman deemed Biden’s renewed initiative for a two-state resolution – a co-existence of Israel and Palestine – as futile.
Trump, in his dialogue with the conservative publication, Israel Hayom, did not fully support either approach. However, he did mention an upcoming discussion with Friedman regarding his annexation scheme.
Both the Biden campaign team and the White House offered careful responses on contentious topics like Israel’s conduct of the Gaza war and potential outcomes. Presidential aides repeated Biden’s opposition to any forced eviction of Palestinian people from Gaza, the re-establishment of Israeli settlements in the area and the reduction of Gaza’s borders. They stated that the President would continue advocating for Palestinian independence in the West Bank and Gaza.
“President Biden’s objective is to cease the violence and establish a lasting, fair peace in the Middle East,” stated Lauren Hitt, a campaign spokesperson.
Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for the Trump campaign, implied that the expected Republican Presidential nominee had no intention of indicating a policy shift with his remarks to Israel Hayom, where he encouraged Israel to “conclude your war” and then seek a form of peace.
Leavitt has released a statement asserting that Israel’s right to self-defense and tackling of terrorist threats is wholly supported by him, though he encourages Israel to expedite the process with humanity and certainty to foster peace and tranquillity in the region.
In his recent interview with Israel Hayom, Trump’s stance on Israel seemed somewhat unclear and inconsistent. While he endorsed Israel’s resolution to tackle the Gaza issue effectively, he appears to have openly criticised Israel’s propaganda. His comments about night-time demolitions suggested that such images should not be made public.
Despite the contradictions, these were not overlooked by Palestinian activists. Tarek Khalil, from the Chicago board of American Muslims for Palestine, asserted Trump only critiqued Israel due to dwindling diplomatic support, not for the killings of Palestinians.
Activists engaged in reversing US military support for the Israeli government led by PM Binyamin Netanyahu won’t withdraw their efforts due to Trump’s discourse, nor will be coerced into supporting Biden’s re-election.
Noting the importance of Trump’s viewpoint, Waleed Shahid stated, “Also, it’s important to mention that even Donald Trump, a strong ally of Netanyahu globally, thinks that Israel is losing both global and American sympathy.” Biden could be facing stringent analysis from voters due to his past decisions of supplying arms during a gruesome war, regardless of whether Trump would have done the same.
Khalil explicitly expressed his disregard for both Trump and Biden. He professed that despite Trump’s aggressive rhetoric, Biden was the one contributing to the genocide.
Echoing Ayoub’s sentiments, Khalil proclaimed neither candidate would earn Arab-American votes and their young progressive allies. Rather than undermining opposition, he reasoned, personal acts should be focused on.
Those sentiments are unsettling news for Biden as he competes for votes, particularly in the crucial battleground of Michigan, which has a substantial Arab-American constituency. Biden’s decision to allow the United Nations Security Council to pass a binding call for a ceasefire in Gaza on Monday seems to have made no difference to his adversaries.
Ayoub expressed his view that the Biden government’s non-participation in the vote represented a distinct shift in policy. Although, he also mentioned their continued supply of arms and financial aid, among other things, that add to the devastation. On a recent Tuesday, officials from the White House listed the measures the administration has implemented to facilitate humanitarian help to reach Gaza – this included urging the governments of Israel and Egypt to authorise cross-border commerce and ensuring the continuation of fuel supplies to the territory. However, none of this has convinced Israel to halt its military assault aimed at dismantling Hamas, which is held responsible for the death of around 1,200 Israelis on October 7th, based on Israeli data. Ayoub emphasised that Trump and Biden aren’t the only alternatives, and the responsibility doesn’t lie with Palestinian-rights and peace campaigners alone to select between the two. If our decision subsequently leads to another Trump term, then the Democrats need to rethink their approach for the next election, he suggested. This article initially appeared in The New York Times in 2024. The New York Times Company holds the rights.