[Though this video is not recent, the authors’ discussion remains relevant today.]

Josef Olmert, an Israeli academic and political commentator, dives into US President Donald Trump’s latest proposals for Gaza and the wider Middle East. Olmert lays out his sharp critiques and his alternative vision. The conversation ranges from the feasibility of mass resettlement of Gazans, to the imperative of destroying Hamas, to the overriding challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Olmert’s initial confusion

Olmert begins by admitting his confusion. For years, Trump positioned himself as an isolationist, pulling America out of international organizations and pushing to withdraw troops from conflict zones. Yet, in this instance, he called for US military involvement in the border region between Israel and Gaza, an area Olmert describes as “one of the most problematic, dangerous and volatile regions of the world.” To him, the contradiction is striking.

Olmert concedes that Trump possesses a certain originality and “out-of-the-box” vision for solving regional problems. Still, he sees fundamental flaws. Trump assumes a single event or plan can provide a sweeping solution to the Middle East’s problems. Olmert pushes back firmly: “It doesn’t work like that.” Countless grand plans, from peace conferences to international accords, have failed because the Middle East is too diverse, fractured and historically laden with conflict.

Olmert also highlights Trump’s reliance on economic logic. As a businessman, the president tends to see commercial fixes as the path to stability. Olmert acknowledges that raising living standards is desirable, but he stresses that economic growth cannot erase deep-rooted political and ideological struggles. In his words, “The entire foundation, therefore, of the approach is wrong.”

The Gaza population dilemma

Olmert then addresses Trump’s focus on Gaza’s demographic challenge. With over two million people packed into a small territory lacking sufficient infrastructure, the humanitarian strain is undeniable. Olmert agrees that the Gaza Strip “cannot cater for a population of over two million people.” Trump suggested emigration as a remedy, with other countries absorbing Gazans.

While Olmert admits some Gazans might want to leave voluntarily, he dismisses the idea. No country can realistically resettle such numbers, certainly not in a short timeframe. Even if partially successful, the region would destabilize in the transition. He draws on history, recalling how the Oslo Accords quickly unraveled under pressure from opponents. Any drawn-out evacuation, he insists, would invite chaos.

Hamas and security imperatives

Despite his skepticism, Olmert identifies actionable points in Trump’s rhetoric. Chief among them is the call to dismantle the Palestinian Sunni militant group Hamas, which governs Gaza. Olmert stresses his long-held conviction that “if you want to achieve peace along the border between Israel and Gaza, Hamas has to be totally destroyed.” He rejects the notion that peace is possible with actors who categorically oppose coexistence.

He also aligns with Trump on freeing Israeli hostages but asks the crucial question: how? Once again, the removal of two million Gazans is not the answer. Instead, the focus must remain squarely on neutralizing Hamas.

Regional players and fragile balances

Turning to neighboring states, Olmert briefly considers the potential roles of Egypt and Jordan. Egypt, he suggests, might absorb a limited number of people. Jordan, however, already has a fragile demographic balance, with up to 70% of its population being of Palestinian origin. Bringing more Gazans would, in his view, risk destabilizing the Hashemite Kingdom.

While critics of Jordan often highlight corruption or weak institutions, Olmert counters that the monarchy has endured for a century — dismantling it could open doors to even greater instability. “The devil you know sometimes is better than the devils you don’t know,” he says.

Olmert also raises cost concerns. Any plan would require massive financial incentives. Ultimately, he argues, the burden would fall on the US taxpayer.

Saudi Arabia enters the conversation as well. Trump publicly claimed that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had expressed opposition to a Palestinian state. Olmert considers this disclosure a blunder. Statements that might be tolerated in private, he warns, become problematic when voiced openly, forcing Saudi leaders to deny them.

Iran as the true challenge

For Olmert, the real strategic focus should remain on the Islamic Republic of Iran. He criticizes Trump’s vague comments about sanctions and his willingness to meet the Iranian president. What disturbed him most was the absence of even the boilerplate statement of “all the options on the table.”

He argues that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional influence are “the key.” Destroying Iran’s nuclear program, he asserts, would have a far greater stabilizing impact than resettling Gazans. Gulf Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, live under constant fear of Iran’s expansionist ambitions. Curtailing the nation, he says, would also shift Palestinian attitudes.

Even so, Olmert does not present this as a cure-all. He admits that removing Iran’s nuclear capacity will not solve everything, but it has a higher chance of promoting stability than Trump’s Gaza proposals. Delays in dealing with Tehran, he warns, would allow Iran to accelerate its nuclear program, creating an existential threat for Israel that “Israel should not accept.”

The Israeli domestic reaction

Olmert also examines reactions inside Israel. Right-wing politicians in the ruling Likud party and ultranationalist ministers, such as Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, celebrated Trump’s words. Yet they overlooked one critical statement: Trump’s rejection of new settlements in Gaza. This could signal broader reservations about settlement policy, including in the West Bank.

Trump even promised an announcement regarding sovereignty in the West Bank, which Olmert interprets as an attempt to reconcile annexation of certain areas with a two-state framework. In his assessment, the Israeli right wing “doesn’t understand” that Trump operates within international constraints. Aligning too closely with his proposals, Olmert warns, risks global backlash and could isolate Israel.

Re-centering priorities

In closing, Olmert emphasizes what he sees as Israel’s true priority. While Trump shifts focus to Gaza, Olmert insists that “the main thing is still the Iranian problem.” For Israel, he says, the Gaza issue is secondary. Ensuring that the world’s attention remains on Iran — not on Trump’s impractical resettlement ideas — is the strategy Israel must pursue.

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.