“Peace Through Strength”: What Did Trump Mean?

In his announcement about the Gaza ceasefire, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump stated, “We will continue to promote peace through strength in the region and build on the momentum of the ceasefire to expand peace agreements.” This statement opened a floodgate of questions about whether peace can be imposed by force, and whether this coercive path will nurture a “culture of peace” or merely pave the way for another war.

The Context of “Peace Through Strength”

For decades, Arab politicians and intellectuals advocating for peace have faced mounting difficulties in promoting such ideals, particularly after Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its occupation of parts of Syria, its declared intention to remain in a border strip in southern Lebanon, and explicit calls by members of Israel’s current coalition government for the forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Adding to this is the rejection of a two-state solution and the invocation of religious imagery about “Greater Israel,” extending in the imagination of ultra-Orthodox Jews from the Nile to the Euphrates.

Historically, proponents of peace relied on three main pillars:

1. 1. Peace as a Possibility: The belief that peace is attainable despite prolonged conflict, exemplified by the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty in 1979.

1. 1. International Law: United Nations resolutions regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1. 1. Political Realism: The acknowledgment that Israel is an extension of Western influence in the region, making war against it effectively a conflict with most Western governments.

Recent narratives have introduced new frameworks, such as the concept of “Abrahamic religions” promoting shared humanity, or the idea that “normalizing relations” with Israel offers mutual benefits. Proponents argue this path is the shortest and safest route to securing Palestinian rights, advancing the economic and security interests of certain Arab countries, and earning Western favor.

These arguments were bolstered by peace agreements with Egypt (1979), Jordan (1994), and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (1993). They were also reinforced by diplomatic and trade ties established between Israel and other Arab states, along with security cooperation under the guise of “counterterrorism.” The 2002 Arab Summit in Beirut further adopted peace as a strategic choice, proposing normalized relations with Israel contingent on its withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders.

The Israeli Counter-Narrative

Parallel to this, Israel promoted its own vision of cooperation, exemplified by former Prime Minister Shimon Peres’s vision of a “New Middle East” and the leftist “Peace Now” movement’s outreach efforts. The 1997 Copenhagen Declaration, issued after a meeting of Arab, Israeli, and European politicians and intellectuals, marked an early attempt at grassroots normalization, though it was limited to elite circles and faced widespread criticism across the Arab world.

Shifting Arab Perceptions of Peace

For decades, Arab advocates of peace adhered to principles like “land for peace” and “restoring Palestinian rights.” Even as some Arab states normalized relations with Israel, these principles loomed large in the background. Generations of Arab youth, including Palestinians, treated peace as a challenging but possible endeavor, believing that negotiations would eventually end occupation and lead to coexistence.

However, this perception has drastically shifted. A new generation sees Israel’s war-driven policies as evidence that it does not take Arab peace overtures, international law, or global humanitarian principles seriously. This generation is more inclined toward boycott movements, protests, and online activism against normalization efforts, viewing these as capitulation.

Israel’s Reluctance Toward Peace

Israel has never declared peace as its strategic choice. Even when engaging in public relations campaigns, it views peace as a temporary truce between wars. Its actions—grounded in religious and political ideologies—demonstrate a commitment to military dominance rather than genuine reconciliation.

Post-War Narratives

When the current war subsides, two conflicting narratives will likely emerge in the Arab world:

1. 1. Advocates arguing that war will not resolve the conflict and that peace is the only viable path.

1. 1. Opponents contending that peace is unattainable as long as Israel continues to prioritize war as a strategy.

Both sides will face immense challenges in promoting a culture of peace, especially amid the rise of Israel’s far-right politics and the enduring scars of wars like the recent “Al-Aqsa Flood” campaign. For many in the new Arab generation, the idea of peace has been eclipsed by memories of aggression, occupation, and devastation.

The Role of the New Generation

This younger generation, deeply affected by the atrocities in Gaza, is more vocal in opposing normalization and defending the legitimacy of resistance. They criticize Arab and Islamic governments for their perceived inaction, distributing their condemnation across a spectrum from complicity to indifference.

The Limits of Peace Through Strength

Israel’s consistent refusal to embrace peace as a strategy underscores its reliance on force to dictate outcomes. Even as it engages in temporary truces, its actions reveal a deeper commitment to maintaining dominance through war. For many Arabs, especially the younger generation, this approach has discredited the idea of “peace through strength,” casting doubt on its ability to foster genuine reconciliation or stability in the region.

As the war concludes, the world will continue to grapple with the long-term implications of these strategies. Will they pave the way for lasting peace, or merely set the stage for future conflicts? The answer depends on whether Israel’s leaders, and their international backers, can recognize the limitations of force in achieving true peace.