Trump’s Speech at the Knesset: Consolidating Unilateralism and Marginalizing Palestinian Rights
The speech delivered by U.S. President Donald Trump at the Israeli Knesset, along with his statements during the
Sharm El-Sheikh Summit, revealed an explicit and unprecedented bias toward
Israeli positions, and a complete departure from any genuine path to achieving
a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East, as he claims. What was
presented on these political occasions was nothing more than a blatant attempt
to push through an Israeli agenda under an American cover, within a dramatic
scene closer to a political performance than to a realistic vision for
achieving peace.
In his speech before the Knesset, Trump reinforced a deeply
biased stance in favor of the Israeli occupying state, as his address seemed
crafted specifically to serve the Israeli narrative and storyline, without any
regard for the Palestinian reality or the legitimate rights of the Palestinian
people.
Trump spoke at length about Israeli “democracy” and Israel’s
so-called “right to defend itself,” yet at no point in his speech did he
mention the more than 70,000 martyrs, the hundreds of thousands of wounded, or
the daily suffering endured by Palestinians who lack even the basic necessities
of life. He made no reference to the genocide in Gaza, the accelerating settlement expansion in the
West Bank, the thousands of Palestinian prisoners, or even the international
principles related to the Palestinian cause. Therefore, it is necessary to
briefly summarize Trump’s remarks in order to deconstruct the main themes of
his speech into four key points.
First: Imposing peace by force:
One of the most striking aspects of Trump’s speech was his
repeated emphasis on the concept of “imposing peace,” a term that clearly
reflects the coercive nature of the American approach to the Palestinian issue.
What he meant was not ending the occupation or engaging in genuine negotiations
to restore Palestinian rights, but rather enforcing a one-sided settlement on the
Palestinians — one that demands acceptance of the status quo and criminalizes
any form of resistance.
Undoubtedly, this vision strips the concept of “peace” of its
true essence, turning it into a tool of oppression used to strip a people under
occupation of their rights. In reality, it represents a blatant violation of
international law and the very principles of justice upon which those laws were
founded.
Second: The “Abrahamic Peace” instead of a Just Peace:
The second key point in analyzing the speech is Trump’s clear
promotion of what is called the “Abrahamic Peace” — a normalization-based peace between Israel and Arab
states, without any reference whatsoever to the core of the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. This type of peace bypasses the legitimate demands of the Palestinian
people, foremost among them their right to self-determination and the
establishment of an independent state.
The “Abrahamic Peace” has been marketed as a project for
regional peace, but at its core, it serves only Israel’s interest in
normalizing relations with its Arab neighbors without paying any political
price related to ending the occupation or recognizing Palestinian rights. It
represents a superficial model of peace that sidesteps the Palestinian cause
instead of confronting it as a fundamental issue that must be resolved to
achieve any lasting stability in the region.
Third: Legitimizing the Occupation through Military Power:
One of the most dangerous elements in Trump’s speech was what
can be described as the adoption of a “victor’s narrative.” He explicitly
asserted that Israel had won the war thanks to U.S. support and advanced
American weaponry, and that the Palestinians and their supporters—such as Iran and
Hezbollah must accept these new realities. This logic reflects a mindset of
political and military arrogance and undermines the very foundations of
international law, which rejects the legitimacy of occupation or the imposition
of sovereignty by force.
Through this narrative, the issue is reduced to a formula of
military dominance in which Israel is granted the upper hand, while
Palestinians are urged to relinquish their historical and national rights under
the guise of “political realism.” Trump’s speech at the Knesset thus reproduces
the very notions of occupation and national superiority, instead of promoting a
new political path that respects human and political rights.
Fourth: Rebuilding Gaza contingent on the disarmament of the
resistance:
Trump referred to the issue of rebuilding the Gaza Strip, but
in a framework laden with conditions that undermine Palestinian sovereignty and
dignity. He spoke of an Arab contribution ranging from $50 to $65 billion for
reconstruction, on the condition that Hamas be disarmed which, in practice, means imposing Israeli
security conditions as part of the deal. This proposal reveals the reality that
Israel still occupies more than half of the Strip’s territory and has imposed a
suffocating blockade on it for years, rendering any talk of reconstruction
meaningless without first ending the occupation and lifting the siege.
The Exclusion of Palestinians at the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit
What was also striking about the Sharm El-Sheikh Summit was
the exclusion of the Palestinian side, which is nominally aligned with official
Arab regimes, from crucial deliberations directly related to their own cause.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was given no real role in the
summit; his attendance was merely ceremonial, secured only after repeated
interventions to ensure his presence. He was not involved in shaping the
outcomes or influencing the directions of the discussions. This reflects an
approach that sidelines the Palestinians in matters concerning their own issue,
attempting to craft solutions without them fully
aligned with Trump’s and Israel’s agenda of imposing a U.S.-driven “peace.”
This disregard contradicts the most basic rules of negotiation
and the principles of political justice. It is inconceivable to sideline the
main party to the conflict and then claim the existence of a genuine peace
process. Excluding the Palestinian voice from any negotiations or international
forums undermines the legitimacy of any resulting outcomes, no matter how
polished or media-backed they may appear. In truth, it was more of a dramatic
performance than a genuine peace summit with real peace-oriented agendas.
Bypassing the Arab Peace Initiative
What took place in Sharm El-Sheikh can only be interpreted as
part of a quiet effort to reintroduce the “Abraham Accords” in a new form that
bypasses the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which had conditioned recognition of Israel on
the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital as
a prerequisite for normalization. The current approach abandons this framework,
turning normalization itself into an end rather than a means, detached from any
political or national gains for the Palestinians. This represents a reversal of
the long-standing Arab consensus and paves the way for dismantling the unified
Arab position on the Palestinian cause.
Therefore, placing any hope in Trump’s speech or in the U.S.
administration to achieve peace is an illusion that will inevitably lead to yet
another disappointment. The proposed vision does not address the root causes of
the conflict, nor does it respect even the minimum of legitimate Palestinian
rights. Instead, it reinforces a one-sided approach, entrenches the occupation,
and marginalizes the Palestinian side.
Therefore, any peace that is not founded on justice and the
recognition of peoples’ right to self-determination is doomed to fail. What has
recently unfolded is merely a repetition of previous attempts that ended in
failure, precisely because they did not grant fairness to the weaker party, nor
did they recognize its humanity and its right to life, freedom, dignity,
independence, and self-determination.
___________________________________________________
