Trump's Gaza plan in the Arab media

“Trans-Trump”: A Zionist plot

Mor calls the idea “Trans-Trump,” a portmanteau of the words transfer and Trump. According to her, the Arab media describes the plan with two terms: “mughamara,” meaning a reckless adventure, and “mu’amara,” meaning a plot. The prevailing perception, she explains, is that this is a Zionist plot planted in Trump’s mind by the Zionist lobby in the United States.

An Orientalist perspective

According to Mor, Trump, like the West in general, looks at the issue through Orientalist eyes. He sees it as a “deal” with material logic and completely ignores ideological, cultural, and historical factors. This approach, she says, ignores the deep connection of the Palestinians to their land. She notes as an example the fact that residents returned to the ruins of their homes in the northern Strip the moment they were able to, because it is their home.

Criticism of Trump and Arab leaders

Mor quotes the journalist Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor of “Raialyoum,” who speaks out against Trump’s hypocrisy. Atwan attacks Trump for promoting the expulsion of immigrants from his own country while simultaneously promoting the expulsion of Palestinians from their homeland. Atwan also calls on the leaders of the Arab world to learn from the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who stood by the immigrants from his country. He sharply criticizes the leaders of the Gulf states for not using their immense wealth, symbolized by the “golden toilets” on their private jets, to help their Palestinian brothers.

Hamas’s response

According to Mor, senior Hamas officials like Mousa Abu Marzouk are very wary of Trump. They see him as a pragmatic person but are very afraid of his plan. The main fear is that the evacuation of the Gazan population will lead to the elimination of Hamas rule, since a king cannot rule without subjects. They reject the idea of a “temporary” evacuation, believing that the temporary will become permanent and that there is no good intention behind the initiative.

The Palestinians as a weapon in the struggle

Boris asks why Arab countries do not open their gates to save the Palestinians from their suffering, as other countries have done for refugees throughout history. Mor explains that in the Palestinian narrative, which is also held in the Arab world, any Arab country that cooperates with such a move would be considered a traitor. Absorbing the Palestinians, even with humanitarian intent, would be interpreted as cooperation with a “Zionist plot” to empty Palestine of its inhabitants and to undermine the right of return. The Palestinians themselves, she emphasizes, prefer to remain on their land, even at the cost of severe suffering, rather than give up their historical connection to the place.

An alternative Palestinian proposal

To Boris’s question whether a non-Western, “Middle Eastern” solution model exists, Mor answers in the affirmative. She mentions a proposal raised by Mahmoud al-Habbash, an advisor to Abu Mazen, according to which Gazans could be temporarily housed in areas in the Negev. Such a solution, she says, keeps them within the borders of what they perceive as “Palestine,” but is of course not feasible from Israel’s perspective.

The religious dimension of the conflict

The conversation touches on the religious component of the conflict. Mor explains how agreements with Israel are perceived in the Muslim world not as “peace” (salam) in the Western sense, but as a temporary truce (hudna), similar to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah from Islamic history. She notes that the Arabic root s-l-m is also related to submission (istislam). She argues that as long as religion dictates the agenda of movements like Hamas, a solution cannot be reached. For Hamas, the struggle against Israel is a stage on the way to its complete elimination, and it stems from a religious commandment that cannot be bought off with economic incentives. Therefore, the concept of “money for quiet” has collapsed.