The Hawaii of Israel: How Trump legitimised a longstanding Israeli vision
On April 7, United States President Donald Trump met Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a second time since his inauguration. Speaking to the media, Trump doubled down on his earlier comments about the Gaza Strip, describing it as an 'incredible piece of important real estate'.
Trump also repeated his suggestion that the Palestinians should leave the Strip 'to different countries' and claimed that people 'really do love that vision. … A lot of people like my concept.'
Days later, about 70 percent of Gaza had been turned into a 'no-go zone' for Palestinians. Confirming that Israel is working 'in accordance with the US president's vision, which we seek to realise', Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz declared Israel's intention to 'seize' more territory, adding that 'wilful passage' will be given to Palestinians who want to leave.
It is by now clear that Trump's statements on Gaza have had the effect of legitimising a longstanding Israeli vision of ethnic cleansing of the Strip. What the US president calls 'my concept' is in fact not his at all.
Over decades of Israeli occupation and colonisation of the Gaza Strip, there have been multiple plans to empty out or disperse the Palestinian population in a bid to secure full control over this part of Palestine. The power of colonial practices has also been tested. For example, to draw Israeli settlers and thereby help transform Gaza's demographics, the Strip was at one point even promoted as the 'Hawaii of Israel'.
Left out of Israeli war aims in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the Gaza Strip emerged out of the 1949 Armistice Agreements under Egyptian military rule. Constituting only a small part of what until then had been the Gaza District of Palestine, the Gaza Strip was home to two groups of Palestinians: the local population and refugees – people who had been forced off their land as Israel expanded its territorial reach during the war.
As the guns fell silent, the Gaza Strip became known in Israeli policy circles as the 'job unfinished' – a slice of land next to the Egyptian border that Israel's leaders would like to control, preferably without its Palestinian population.
Israel's first attempt to take Gaza by force occurred in 1956. But under pressure from US President Dwight Eisenhower, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion had no choice but to withdraw and put an end to the Israeli occupation. The botched attempt taught Israel an important lesson: To redraw the map of the Middle East and to make its territorial expansionist agenda a success, Israel needed American support and approval.
The 1967 Arab-Israeli War was far more successful in this regard. Through conquest and occupation, the Gaza Strip was brought under direct Israeli rule. This opened the door to revitalise 'transfer' – the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. Seen as both necessary and permissible or, in Ben-Gurion's words, 'an important humane and Zionist idea', transfer was recognised as an effective tool to advance Zionist colonisation of Palestine.
In the following years, as noted by Palestinian historian Nur Masalha, transfer acquired different labels. These included 'population exchange', 'Arab return to Arabia', 'voluntary emigration' and 'rehabilitation' with different Israeli governments taking different approaches.
One approach was Defence Minister Moshe Dayan's 'open bridges', which allowed Palestinians in Gaza to leave for other countries in search of work. Another was to open offices in Gaza's refugee camps to organise and pay for travel and passports for Palestinians willing to 'voluntarily migrate', which in effect turned the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs into a 'global travel agency'. Regardless of the approach, Israel's policy objective remained the same: to create a drive in Palestinians to leave the Strip.
'I want them all to go, even if they go to the moon,' Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol said. Expressing Israeli frustration, Eshkol articulated the feeling of being stuck with what was considered the problem of Gaza. After all, only the Palestinian population there – and the sizeable refugee population in particular – stood in the way of full Israeli annexation.
In response to Israel's Gaza 'dilemma', its politicians also looked for more comprehensive solutions. This led to an almost continuous flow of plans for the 'rehabilitation' of Palestinians outside the Strip. Starting immediately after the 1967 war, a variety of potential destinations came up. These included the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula, Iraq, or even as far afield as Canada and Australia.
Despite Israeli efforts and elaboration of plans – and much to the disappointment of Israel's decision-makers – the initiatives came to naught as the number of Palestinians leaving the Strip remained limited. And given other considerations, including moral, legal and diplomatic ones, the plans to displace a large number of Palestinians from Gaza were left in the drawer.
But as Israeli politicians turned to examine their menu of choices in the post-October 7, 2023, era, 'voluntary emigration', or forced displacement, re-emerged. Gone was any sensitivity to international opinion and potential reactions. Instead, Trump has led the way, making statements on Gaza that in effect turn decades of Zionist ideology and practice into official American policy.
By means of his policy stance, the US president has legitimised a longstanding Israeli vision of ethnic cleansing in the Strip. In the process, his articulation of policy has moved ever closer to the strand of Revisionist Zionism that viewed Palestinians as aliens in their own land and, therefore, 'transferable'.
In arguing that Palestinians need to go to make Israel and the region safe, Trump has departed from the internationally shared principle that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip – as elsewhere in the occupied Palestinian territory – have legitimate rights to self-determination in their land. As such, Trump brings to mind Revisionist Zionist ideologue Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who argued that 'when the Arab claim is confronted with our Jewish demand to be saved, it is like the claims of appetite vs the claims of starvation' with 'transfer' inextricably linked to Jewish rights to the land.
The cynical promises of a better future for people who are left with nothing but their land after a brutal war of erasure and plausible genocide must be taken seriously. The legitimacy Trump has given to Israeli plans poses a threat in the here and now, but it could also outlast his presidency.
That is because he has offered US presidential sanction of ethnic cleansing as an acceptable tool. This leaves the door open for Israel – in the near or distant future – to pursue 'transfer', 'rehabilitation' and 'voluntary emigration' of Palestinians, whether in Gaza or the West Bank.
Furthermore, the American president has repeatedly communicated US support for illegal land seizures and colonisation. Suggesting Gaza (and Greenland) could become 'US territory', he has reintroduced and validated ideas that most leaders of the world had put on the scrap heap of history.
Finally, Trump has shifted the US position away from the premise of working towards a two-state solution. In fact, considering his statements, there appears to be a fundamental disregard for Palestinians in Gaza and their collective right to self-determination.
Looking at current US policy against historical record, Trump's 'Riviera of the Middle East' seems a curious combination of Zionist ethnic cleansing under the 'transfer' model and the colonial ideal of the 'Hawaii of Israel'.
It is no wonder Trump has been cheered on by Israeli leaders as he calls for the forced depopulation of the Gaza Strip and its transformation into fully fledged colonial territory – annexed or otherwise. After all, Trump's ideas follow in the footsteps of Zionist leaders from Ben-Gurion to Netanyahu, under whom transfer has been the preferred but diplomatically and legally challenging option all along.
With Trump going out in front, such challenges could turn into tomorrow's opportunities. It remains the task of other states to stand up against Israeli-American normalisation of continued ethnic cleansing and colonial land grabs in Palestine.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
US-China trade talks ‘going well' on 2nd day: Howard Lutnick
Agencies Trade talks with China were going well, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said on Tuesday as the two sides met for a second day in London, seeking a breakthrough on export controls that have threatened a new rupture in fragile ties between the superpowers. Having agreed to step back from a full-blown trade embargo at a first round of talks in Geneva in May, the two sides are now seeking agreement after they accused each other of trying to throttle supply chains with a raft of export controls. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday that the U.S. could lift recently imposed export controls on goods such as semiconductors if China sped up the delivery of rare earths and magnets that are crucial to its economy. The blow-up over rare earths, which has sparked alarm in boardrooms and factory floors around the world, came after last month's preliminary deal in Geneva to cut tariffs, which eased investor fears that a trade war would lead to a global slowdown. '(Talks went on) all day yesterday, and I expect them all day today,' Lutnick told reporters. 'They're going well, and we're spending lots of time together.'Trump's shifting tariff policies have roiled global markets, sparked congestion and confusion in major ports, and cost companies tens of billions of dollars in lost sales and higher costs. But markets have made up much of the losses they endured after Trump unveiled his sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, aided by the reset in Geneva between the world's two biggest economies. The second round of U.S.-China talks, which followed a rare phone call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last week, comes at a crucial time for both economies. Customs data published on Monday showed that China's exports to the U.S. plunged 34.5% in May, the sharpest drop since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the impact on U.S. inflation and the jobs market has so far been muted, tariffs have hammered U.S. business and household confidence and the dollar remains under pressure. The two sides, led at the talks by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, with the Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng, are meeting at the ornate Lancaster House in the British capital. The talks ran for almost seven hours on Monday and resumed just before 10 a.m. GMT on Tuesday, with both sides expected to issue updates later in the day. The inclusion of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the U.S., is one indication of how central rare earths have become. He did not attend the Geneva talks, when the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, a crucial component in electric vehicle motors, and its decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended global supply chains. In May, the U.S. responded by halting shipments of semiconductor design software, chemicals and aviation equipment, revoking export licences that had been previously issued. Hassett said he expected any export controls from the U.S. to be eased and rare earths released in volume once the two sides had shaken hands in London. But he said any easing would not include the 'very, very high-end Nvidia stuff,' referring to Nvidia's most advanced artificial intelligence chips that have been blocked from going to China over concerns about potential military applications. 'I'm talking about possible export controls on other semiconductors which are also very important to them,' he said.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
What do we know about the US-China trade deal?
The White House has said a trade deal with China is done and is awaiting the signatures of United States President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping. The White House said on Wednesday that the president is currently reviewing the details. Trump announced the deal after days of trade talks between US and Chinese delegations in London, which followed an earlier round of negotiations in Geneva, Switzerland. 'We have reached a framework to implement the Geneva consensus and the call between the two presidents,' US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters during the announcement. The deal includes a provision in which China will supply the US with rare earth elements vital to major US companies, particularly in the auto, semiconductor, and smartphone manufacturing sectors. Trump said that minerals would be supplied upfront, but it is unclear what that entails. China has disproportionate control over the rare earth market. It produces 60 percent of the world's rare earth minerals and processes nearly 90 percent of them. That has been a longstanding concern of the US, including during the administration of former President Joe Biden. In February 2024, then US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said the US was 'very concerned' about the nation's reliance on China for its supply of critical minerals in an interview with CNBC. Those concerns have been amplified in Trump's second term, especially after he imposed sweeping tariffs – including a 145 percent tariff on China – and added on export control measures for China's chip industry. In April, China's Ministry of Commerce retaliated by imposing export restrictions on these minerals. Under the latest agreement, the US will impose 55 percent tariffs across the board on Chinese goods, down from 145 percent. In return, Beijing will impose a 10 percent tariff on goods it imports from the US, down from 125 percent. The 55 percent US tariff includes a 10 percent baseline tariff – which is currently in legal limbo after a trade court ruled it illegal, a decision that a higher court has temporarily blocked – as well as 25 percent from tariffs dating to Trump's first term and 20 percent related to alleged fentanyl trafficking. The White House has framed the deal as a win, and the tariffs remain higher than when Trump first took office. Experts continue to argue that tariffs act as a tax on US businesses and consumers will ultimately bear the cost, not China. Retailers, including Walmart, have already said they will need to raise prices because of the tariffs. In an earnings call last month, CEO Doug McMillon said, 'Given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins.' Walmart sources about 60 percent of its merchandise from China. It's not clear if it will change any of its sourcing plans in the light of the latest deal. The new deal hasn't assuaged the concerns among the small business community. 'For many small businesses that mostly source their parts or products from China, this is a death sentence and will destroy their American dream,' the Main Street Alliance, an advocacy group representing small business interests, said in a publicly released statement in response to the trade deal. Small business owners have also had to implement hiring freezes and pause development due to tariffs on China. Wild Rye, an outdoor apparel brand that previously spoke with Al Jazeera, said this hasn't changed anything. 'It is devastating, 55 percent tariffs are still insane,' Cassie Abel, founder of Wild Rye, told Al Jazeera. She added that because of the previously announced tariffs, anticipatory spending and orders to cater to, it was very challenging for small businesses like hers to find shipping containers to get her existing orders to the US. 'It's really hard to find a container. The chances of getting our product out of China within the 90-day window is basically zero,' Abel said. The deal for a 90 day pause on most tariffs was announced in April and expires July 8. Because the specifics of the trade deal have yet to be made public, it is not clear when the new tariffs will kick in for China. The White House did not respond to Al Jazeera's request for clarification. The deal also includes a concession allowing Chinese students to continue attending US universities, a matter that had not been contested until Trump raised it a few weeks ago. The sudden shift in the US stance on that had left thousands of Chinese students – and the universities they were set to attend or are currently enrolled in – in limbo. Lutnick said that US tariffs on China will not change again and will go into effect as soon as next week, although analysts believe that may be a negotiating tactic. Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, believes that despite Lutnick's claims, this will not be the end of tariff negotiations with China. He expects further industry-specific exemptions in the months ahead, similar to the exception for semiconductor chips. 'The tariffs are high, but I believe this is … a starting point. The framework's established, and I'd expect more deals going forward,' Ives said. Adam S Hersch, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, agrees it will lead to more negotiations. 'It seems like the two sides have agreed to postpone facing their deeper disagreements,' Hersch said. Global markets generally responded positively to the news. In London, the FTSE closed up 0.1 percent. The Nikkei in Tokyo closed up 0.6 percent, the Hong Kong Hang Seng Index rose 0.8 percent, and Shanghai markets ended the day up 0.5 percent. In the US, markets remained largely flat, balancing optimism from the trade news with the release of new inflation data. Consumer prices increased by just 0.1 percent, which was lower than expected. Analysts say the figure reflects both subdued inflation and consumers scaling back spending, partly due to the uncertainty surrounding trade policy. The S&P 500 fell 0.3 percent for its first loss in four days. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was virtually unchanged after falling by 1 point yesterday. The tech heavy Nasdaq fell by 0.5 percent.
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Why Trump's attempts to make peace in Ukraine will fail
Despite the White House pressure to end the Ukraine war, which has resulted in face-to-face talks, it has only worsened. Andrey Kortunov, the former director of the Russian International Affairs Council, tells host Steve Clemons that war is a high priority for Moscow, and a low priority for Washington, so Russia is not in a rush to resolve the conflict according to United States President Donald Trump's timeline. Former National Intelligence Council officer Angela Stent argues that the wider Russian strategy is to undo the Western advances made in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union.
