Is Trump Paving the Way for a Palestinian State?
Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel, November 16
The United States’ decision to bring President Trump’s 20-point plan to a vote in the UN Security Council signals a troubling turn for Israel and emphasizes the widening gap between American ambitions to reshape the Middle East and Israel’s own strategic interests.
The Israeli public largely embraced President Trump’s proposal to reshape the region. At the outset, American and Israeli objectives appeared fully aligned: securing the release of hostages, ending the war on terms favorable to Israel, maintaining control over significant parts of the Gaza Strip, and avoiding any forced withdrawal were all viewed as major policy achievements. Added to this was the plan’s insistence on the disarmament of Hamas and the end of its rule in Gaza—goals that matched the war aims articulated by the Israeli government and reflected the close coordination between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu.
The plan’s broader strategic vision also held great promise for Israel, positioning it as a central link in the emerging economic corridor connecting India, the Middle East, and Europe. From this, Israel stood to gain expanded regional cooperation, economic advantages, and potentially the entry of additional Arab states—most notably Saudi Arabia—into the Abraham Accords.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
Yet embedded within this sweeping plan are two significant dangers that the Israeli government has either overlooked or willingly minimized amid hopes of securing the hostages’ return. These risks may not be immediate, but they carry potentially severe long-term implications. The first is Turkey’s growing involvement in regional power centers. President Erdoğan has made no secret of his imperial ambitions or his hostility toward Israel. A deeper Turkish presence in Gaza and Syria could give rise to a potent Sunni axis, replacing the Shiite axis Israel has spent years working to contain.
The second danger lies in the roadmap the United States submitted to the Security Council for establishing a Palestinian state. While UN bodies have frequently voted on such proposals—most passing easily in the General Assembly—the Security Council has always been Israel’s last line of defense, with the US veto serving repeatedly as a protective barrier against binding resolutions. This time, however, it is Washington itself initiating the resolution that would underpin a Palestinian state.
The language of the plan marks a stark departure from President Trump’s previous embrace of a voluntary immigration proposal that broke sharply from the traditional two-state framework. Now, the administration appears to have abandoned that path entirely. The 20-point plan not only omits any reference to the immigration idea but explicitly urges Gazans to remain and “build a better Gaza.” Just last September, the UN General Assembly adopted the Saudi-French proposal for a Palestinian state with overwhelming support—142 nations in favor, opposed by only ten, including the United States. At the time, the American representative dismissed the proposal as a “gift to Hamas.”
Two months later, the same United States is paving the way for a Palestinian state that many Israelis view as an existential threat. Israel now appears to be moving along a perilous trajectory in which it may forfeit control over its own fate. Transferring authority in Gaza to external actors, the potential withdrawal from Mount Hermon, and the growing likelihood of losing strategic depth in Judea and Samaria all serve as unmistakable warning signs. The Israeli government insists it will not compromise on vital security interests or relinquish sovereignty, even at the risk of clashing with the Trump administration. But it is entirely possible that future American administrations—perhaps far less sympathetic—will push to impose this plan without regard for Israel’s core concerns.
Danny Van Buren (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
