Trump’s Gaza proposal to displace Palestinians has sparked outrage in Egypt and Jordan. Leaders are concerned about the geopolitical implications and potential instability in their countries. Both leaders are heading to Washington in hopes of influencing Trump’s approach, while grappling with the historical context of Palestinian displacement and domestic pressures.
International outrage has intensified over Donald Trump’s Gaza proposal, suggesting the US take ownership of the territory, potentially displacing over two million Palestinians. This proposal has raised alarm among leaders in Egypt and Jordan, who promptly rejected it and are traveling to Washington in hopes of persuading Trump to reconsider. “They are terrified that an Israeli policy of population transfer will actually become real,” stated Neil Quilliam.
Both Jordan and Egypt have deep concerns about the implications of accepting large numbers of displaced Palestinians. King Abdullah II of Jordan and Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi are particularly cautious, given their countries’ reliance on US aid. Jordan, having hosted waves of Palestinians since 1948, faces the political fallout of any perceived betrayal of the Palestinian cause.
Jordan is home to many individuals of Palestinian descent, raising sensitive political questions. The memory of past conflicts, notably the events of 1970 when Palestinian factions nearly took control of the kingdom, remains acute. Jordanian officials warn that forcing West Bank Palestinians into Jordan could be viewed as a declaration of war, triggering severe repercussions from Israel.
In recent months, Jordan has echoed calls for stronger Palestinian support while grappling with domestic protests. Any compliance with Trump’s plan could alienate the populace and threaten Jordan’s existing peace treaty with Israel, resulting in a dangerous balancing act for its officials. “The questions of who counts as Jordanian and what it means to be Jordanian are highly combustible,” observed Alia Brahimi.
The situation in Jordan could be compounded by economic strain, with public services overstretched and security challenged by rising extremism. A large-scale influx of displaced Palestinians would require significant preparations and resources. Katrina Sammour emphasized the risks of such a plan becoming a security nightmare.
In Egypt, security remains a pressing concern, particularly regarding the Sinai region. The Egyptian government previously refused to allow Palestinians to escape into its territory to prevent a destabilizing refugee influx. Brahimi noted that militancy could thrive within a displaced population, potentially jeopardizing Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel.
Egypt is grappling with its economic troubles, and a permanent influx of displaced Palestinians would exacerbate these issues. Quilliam noted the high economic costs involved, stressing that the Egyptian economy is already under severe strain. The potential for widespread discontent could spark protests, further threatening the regime’s stability.
Both Jordanian and Egyptian leaders are wary of being complicit in what could be perceived as ethnic cleansing. As Brahimi stated, both leaders face the risk of political calamity in the wake of increased unrest. Trump, however, appears optimistic, suggesting that Abdullah and Sisi will ultimately support his proposal.
The article examines the implications of Trump’s proposal for US ownership of Gaza, highlighting the resulting geopolitical tensions for Egypt and Jordan. As members of the Arab world with significant Palestinian populations, both nations are concerned about being pressured to accept Palestinian refugees, particularly from Gaza. This situation is complicated by their dependency on US support and the historical context of Palestinian displacement in the region.
In summary, Trump’s Gaza plan poses severe challenges for Egypt and Jordan, as both countries grapple with the prospect of accepting displaced Palestinians. This could threaten their political stability and regional security, especially as public sentiment remains against such measures. The leaders from these nations are faced with a difficult balancing act between external pressures and internal stability.
Original Source: www.theguardian.com
