What does Trump’s Ukraine policy offer the Middle East?

Donald Trump prides himself on deal making in a way that transcends conventional approaches whereby he has the ultimate say with all other parties accepting his decision. He plays both roles; that of the arbitrator and that of negotiator; inherently conflicting roles particularly in political negotiations.

Take his approach to the Ukrainian conflict to see how the president tries to be a negotiator with absolute power while at the same time he is seeking to be the arbitrator without any qualifications for the role. Such an approach may succeed in dealing with struggling companies facing existential    threats but it will never succeed in political issues with historical dimensions rooted in the past with extensions that go beyond the present and participate in shaping the future. He told the Ukrainian president “either you make a deal or we are out.”

To start with he wants Ukraine to accept the fact that whatever territories it lost to Russia are things of the past and should not be claimed back. He also wants Kyiv to live with Moscow’s demand that NATO membership is a redline and could be a huge obstacle to ending the war. He wants Syria to forget the Golan Heights, declaring it Israeli territory, and for Mauritius to forget Diego Garcia, which the US and UK use for military purposes.

If we are to take Trump’s “model” in Ukraine and apply it to the Arab-Israeli conflict starting with Gaza, we are likely to end up with something “unconventional” in handling and settling conflicts. A deal that discounts any Palestinian or Arab concerns and rights. Trump might be able to deliver some kind of plan to end the conflict but such a plan will rest on Israeli views that reject any talk of the so-called two-state solution, end of occupation and respect of Palestinian rights in all occupied territories. First and foremost any Trump “model” applicable to Gaza and Palestine as a whole is certain to disregard international law including the decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) . Both courts have already criminalised Israel as a state and two of its leaders are wanted by the criminal court for war crimes and crimes against humanity including genocide.

READ: Arab leaders must embrace multipolarity to counter Trump’s Gaza plan

President Trump is very unlikely to listen to the demands of the extraordinary Arab summit which has just concluded in Cairo, Egypt, with adopting a 112-page plan for rebuilding Gaza without forcing its people to leave the enclave. The final communiqué of the summit reaffirmed Arab support for “peace as strategic” Arab option. But for Trump, peace here means the Palestinians should be transferred to the wider world and end up truly as a nation without any land— the true meaning of being homeless worthy of charity.

Trump sees the conflict between Palestinians, minus the Arabs, as an issue of “misunderstanding” and daring political initiatives. The misunderstanding, according to him, stems from what he sees as an issue of security for Israel – regarding which Palestinians have no say and cannot demand security for themselves even under occupation. He has already made it clear that he supports the gradual taking over of much of the occupied West Bank, not just by the Israeli state but also by rogue herds of criminals called settlers. One of his earlier second term acts was to lift all sanctions imposed by his predecessor, Joe Biden, on a few settlers and their supporting entities. Despite being nominal, the sanctions reaffirmed the US’ rejection of Palestinian land theft committed daily by the criminals under the protection of Israeli occupation forces in the West Bank.

This kind of view has been a top priority of his “plan” to the Ukrainian conflict, starting with Ukraine forgetting all territories already occupied by Russia. The idea of giving up land is counter to all international principles and norms. It actually implies a total disregard for international law, including the principles of the United Nations, which Trump wants to transform into an empty shell or, better still, a debating club.

Political daring wise Trump believes he is the first US leader to ever talk of resolving conflicts by redefining them. This is already seen and understood in his 2020 Deal of Century initiative which he proposed to settle the Middle East conflict once and for all. Indeed that idea is already dead but it should not be written off completely. It has produced a new diplomatic breakthrough for Israel as four Arab states normalised ties with it; making Israel’s long held dream of ending its regional diplomatic isolation a reality.

As for the rest of the decisions just taken by the Cairo summit, what might interest Trump is the emphasis on peace as an Arab collective choice. Trump, however, only understands peace through the prism of Israel which excludes and rights for the Palestinians even if they accept an impossible life under occupation.

READ: Sisi: Gaza offensive a stain on human history

Most of all what Trump sees as a prerequisite to end the conflict in the Middle East is impunity for Israel and its officials. He wants no talk of any accountability for decades of occupation, apartheid, discrimination, mass murder and above all land theft. In Trump’s view, “Palestinian terror” should be held accountable since Israel is a small “democratic oasis” defending itself from the terror of “savages” that surround it.

When looked at from a regional perspective, Trump’s Ukraine “model” might easily work for Palestine – starting with Gaza – but only when the last Palestinian is out of their homes and scattered around the globe or dead. Rafael Eitan, a former Israeli general, once said: “When we have settled the land [Palestine], all the [Palestinian] Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.” Trump’s intellectual abilities might be limited but he certainly can comprehend what Eitan said decades ago.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.