While President Trump’s speech garnered most of the attention at the UN General Assembly, a gathering on Tuesday with Arab and Muslim leaders could turn out to be the most consequential part of this week’s events. Trump even said as much, referring to the negotiation as “my most important meeting,” and a chance “to end something that should have probably never started.”
That something that shouldn’t have started is Israel’s war with Hamas, and the President’s assessment appears to have a better chance of being accurate now than at any point in the conflict’s nearly two years of violence and death.
While most ceasefire negotiations to this point have relied on both Israel and Hamas finding a middle ground that was considered mutually beneficial to both parties, Trump’s current proposal appears to essentially leave Hamas out of the equation. Instead, on Tuesday, he met with leaders from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
Notably absent from that list were Hamas, Iran, and Israel, though Trump is meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday. Israel is, however, generally aware of what Trump proposed. And, as one Israeli official described, they understand that “There will be bitter pills we’ll have to swallow.”
Specific details of the President’s twenty-one-point plan are, as of this writing, largely unknown. Yet, as Axios reports, some of the general principles are:
- The release of all remaining hostages.
- A permanent ceasefire.
- Gradual Israeli withdrawal from all of the Gaza Strip.
- A post-war plan that includes a governing mechanism in Gaza without Hamas.
- A security force that would include Palestinians but also soldiers from Arab and Muslim countries.
- Funding from Arab and Muslim countries for the new administration in Gaza and for reconstruction of the enclave.
- Some involvement of the Palestinian Authority
In return for their support, Axios writes that Arab leaders will reportedly require that:
- Israel will not annex parts of the West Bank or Gaza.
- Israel will not occupy parts of Gaza.
- Israel will not build settlements in Gaza.
- Israel will stop undermining the status quo at the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
- Humanitarian aid to Gaza will immediately increase.
(These lists are quoted directly from Axios’s article.)
Essentially, Muslim nations want Israel out of Gaza and appear more willing than at any point in the last two years to take on the necessary levels of responsibility to ensure Israel can do so safely. But while all of that sounds good, a number of questions remain that could determine the feasibility of Trump’s proposal. And chief among them is whether Gaza would remain part of Israel or become an independent Palestinian nation.
Will Israel accept a two-state solution?
Calls for Israel to accept a two-state solution have been around for decades, but both their frequency and intensity have increased in recent weeks. At the General Assembly, France, the UK, and several other Western powers joined the chorus.
President Trump has, to this point, staunchly opposed the idea, arguing that such a move would be a “reward for Hamas.” The majority of Israelis are similarly against the proposal. However, it’s difficult to see other Muslim nations—and particularly those in the Middle East—accepting so much risk and responsibility unless they were doing so on behalf of an independent Palestine.
Moreover, Trump was unyielding in his belief that Hamas cannot be rewarded for what happened on October 7, but it’s less clear if he would feel the same about a situation where Hamas was no longer in charge. And while accepting a two-state solution would indeed be a “bitter pill,” there are also sound arguments that it could advance the security and prosperity of Israel.
As Faisal J. Abbas describes:
A Palestinian state would give Israel a partner responsible for its own territory, its own governance, and its own security. This means that any terrorist activity originating from Palestinian soil becomes the responsibility of the new government, which will be held accountable under international law.
But while that sounds reasonable, it rests on the assumption that a fledgling Palestine would be capable of enforcing that level of accountability rather than falling back under the control of Hamas or another terrorist influence. And that’s where the nations with whom Trump met on Tuesday—many of whom were part of the first major foreign trip of his current term—would need to step in.
Why Israel needs help
The truth is that Israel will never be able to do what is necessary to restore peace in Gaza without incurring the anger and wrath—at least publicly—of the Muslim world. Muslims everywhere are bound by the concept of Ummah, which holds that all Muslims are part of a collective community. This principle is largely where they get the idea that an attack on Muslims in one area is an attack on Islam as a whole.
As such, when Israel’s attacks on Hamas lead to the death of civilians, the Islamic world is required to condemn them. Yet, if a Muslim nation were charged with putting an end to Hamas and freeing the remaining hostages, that would not violate the principle in the same way as when Israel or a Western nation attempts to do so.
However, Israel’s problem is that they’ve seen little in the Palestinian Authority—the group that runs the West Bank and would be the most likely candidates to lead in a post-war Gaza—to make them believe they would be up to the challenge. Outside help will be needed, and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the other nations with whom Trump met appear willing to give it.
While there are a number of details that still need to be worked out, if Israel is willing to receive that help—and to do so on terms those nations would find acceptable—it’s possible that this war could end before the second anniversary of the attacks that started it back on October 7, 2023.
And there is an important lesson in that reality that we would all do well to remember today.
Choosing God’s will over your own
One of the most difficult aspects of living out our faith well is laying down our rights when doing so is required to advance God’s kingdom. Israel has every right to defend its borders and continue the war in Gaza until each hostage is returned and Hamas is no longer a threat. But the reality is that continuing to pursue that right will make it more difficult to achieve their desired ends.
In the same way, there are times when pursuing our right to defend our reputation, our honor, or to seek retribution for a wrong done to us will make it much more difficult to maintain our witness and fulfill the role God has called us to play in advancing his kingdom. Jesus spoke to this reality in the Sermon on the Mount when he called us to turn the other cheek, give up your cloak, and go the extra mile (Matthew 5:43–48).
At no point in that teaching does Jesus claim that we do not have the right to pursue retribution. He just calls us to give up that right in order to prioritize our witness instead.
I think he knew that would be hard for us, though, which is perhaps why he followed up that lesson by teaching on the need to love our enemies and the call to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (5:43–48).
You see, Jesus isn’t asking us to do anything more than what he’s already done for us. On the cross, he had every right to command angels to come and rescue him. He chose not to, though, because pursuing God’s purposes was more important.
I don’t know how the situation in Gaza will end or whether Israel will be willing to make the necessary concessions to receive help from its neighbors in bringing about that end. I have more hope that they will than I’ve had for quite some time, but, at least for now, it’s difficult to do more than hope.
However, I do know that there will be times when Christ calls us to concede our rights in order to prioritize his purpose, and making the right choice in those moments will be far easier to do if we’ve already decided that God’s will is more important than our own.
Will you make that choice today?
Quote of the day:
“The weakness of the Church lies not in the lack of Christian arguments but in the lack of Christian lives.” —William Barclay
Our latest website resources:
Denison Forum
DAILY DEVOTIONS, NEWS AND INFORMATION 