US allies break with Trump to force diplomatic shift on Gaza

As Canada joins France and the UK in announcing plans to recognise a Palestinian state, the US is standing firmly with Israel – but does Trump have a long-term plan for Gaza’s future?

Of all history’s declarations about the Middle East, one that may be less prominent in the global collective memory was in Tokyo in November 2023.

Then-US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken laid out a series of principles for the “day after” the war in Gaza at a meeting of the G7, a group of the world’s most powerful countries.

He travelled there from Tel Aviv, after meeting Israel’s leadership a month after the Hamas attacks on October 7, during the ensuing Israeli offensive on Gaza.

Blinken listed what amounted to US conditions for Israel’s military objectives and the wider conflict:

No forcible displacement of Palestinians. No Israeli re-occupation of Gaza after the war ends. No attempt to blockade or besiege Gaza. A future governance that must be Palestinian-led, involving the internationally backed Palestinian Authority. No role for Hamas.

The principles were intended to generate support from America’s allies in Europe and parts of the Arab world – even if Israel objected to many of them. Few probably remember Blinken declaring his Tokyo Principles – least of all the Trump administration, which immediately jettisoned them.

But the ideas are still supported by many US allies, who travelled to the United Nations in New York this week for a French-Saudi-led conference calling for a rekindling of the two-state solution.

The conference made headlines as France, then the UK, committed to recognising a Palestinian state later this year under certain conditions. On Wednesday afternoon, Canada followed suit. But the Trump administration boycotted the meeting, viewing it as anti-Israel.

“The United States will not participate in this insult but will continue to lead real-world efforts to end the fighting and deliver a permanent peace,” said US State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce, deriding the conference as a “publicity stunt”.

Now, a chasm has opened up between the US and its traditional allies on the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This raises a question: Does the Trump administration have a vision for the future governance of Gaza and longer-term permanent peace?

It is becoming increasingly clear that it doesn’t – at least not one of its own. Earlier this month, I asked Ms Bruce what the administration’s vision was for the future governance of Gaza, beyond its requirement that Hamas cannot exist.

She responded that “countries, our partners in the region” were working to implement “new ideas” the president had asked for. When I pressed her on what this involved she said: “I won’t exactly tell you today.”

In February, President Trump declared that the US would take over the Gaza Strip and build a “riviera of the Middle East” in a plan that involved the forced displacement of Palestinians in the territory, which the US and Israel later tried to claim meant “voluntary” emigration.

Whilst the idea was clearly unfeasible and would be in violation of international law, it appeared to be Trump’s post-war plan. It would presumably have involved Israeli military occupation of the strip to facilitate it. It was not clear how any continuing insurgency by Hamas or aligned armed groups would have been defeated.

Since then, the plan has been slowly, quietly dropped – at least in its fuller form. Asked on Tuesday about his plan to move Palestinians Trump described it as “a concept that was really embraced by a lot of people, but also some people didn’t like it”.

The latter was probably a reference to rejection by Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, which Trump visited in May for a lavish trade tour to take in gilded palaces.

The administration prefers to talk about the immediate issue: freeing hostages and getting a ceasefire. When Trump was again asked to look beyond that, during a recent White House visit from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he immediately deferred to the Israeli leader to answer.

It amounts to a growing evidence that the Trump administration’s strategy on Gaza increasingly parallels that of its Israeli ally.

Mr Netanyahu rejects any involvement of the Palestinian Authority in future governance of Gaza, where his forces now control some two-thirds of the territory. The far-right flank of his coalition demands permanent military occupation, the expulsion of Palestinians and the building of Jewish settlements.

Israel and the US have attempted to take control of the food supply for Palestinians, within militarised zones, while Israel also arms Palestinian militiamen who rival Hamas. The international body that monitors famine, the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), said there is mounting evidence of widespread starvation, malnutrition and disease in Gaza. Israel has blamed Hamas and the UN for the crisis, but said it is facilitating more aid.

Many European nations have watched aghast. UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy told me on Wednesday: “We have seen the most horrific scenes. The global community is deeply offended by children being shot and killed as they reach out for aid.”

Starvation appears to be an inflection point for European countries – a moral impetus to drive their divergent diplomacy. Domestic pressures in Britain and France also mounted to recognise a Palestinian state under certain conditions.

Without a coherent, internationally backed plan for future governance, Gaza faces the prospect of increasing chaos.

Blinken was aware of this risk from early in the war, and shuttled between Arab states trying to get them to sign up for a future plan involving parts of the Palestinians Authority and Arab countries providing security forces. He also intervened on at least three occasions, forcing Israel to allow more aid into Gaza, twice using the threat of restricting US weapons to make his point.

There has been no such pressure by the Trump administration, which accelerated arms to Israel since January.

The US has left what amounts to a strategic vacuum on Gaza’s long-term plan. The Europeans, working with Gulf Arab counties, spent this week trying to fill it.

For them, without effective aid, governance and a long-term peace plan, the impact on the ground will only deteriorate. They called this week for urgent aid intervention, backing the Palestinian Authority, and reviving work towards a two-state solution – even without the US signed up.

It upends years of convention by which major Western powers would recognise a Palestinian state only at the end of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Importantly, their combined statement meant Saudi Arabia, a leader of the Arab and Muslim world, was joining the condemnation of Hamas and call for its disarmament.

Now they’re hoping their move, supported by Arab countries, pressures Trump back towards a more established diplomatic process.

But their conference – which will meet again in September – is working against all odds. The superpower seat is empty.