عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

The Negev Desert... Why is it Repeatedly Mentioned as an Alternative for Displacement of Gazans?

A Bedouin village in the Negev Desert (AFP)
A Bedouin village in the Negev Desert (AFP)
TT
20
TT

The Negev Desert... Why is it Repeatedly Mentioned as an Alternative for Displacement of Gazans?

A Bedouin village in the Negev Desert (AFP)
A Bedouin village in the Negev Desert (AFP)

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s talk about the Negev Desert as an alternative destination to transfer the Palestinians of Gaza to “until Israel ends its operations,” brought back the spotlight on that region, which has long been mentioned in projects aimed at displacing Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or within various notions known as “land exchange.”

However, the idea of moving the Palestinians to that area has always been met with rejection regionally and internationally, according to experts in Israeli affairs, who spoke to Asharq Al-Awsat.

The Egyptian president warned on Wednesday of the continuation of military operations in the Gaza Strip, saying that they would have “security and military repercussions that could get out of control.”

In a press conference after talks with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Sisi stressed that the displacement of Palestinians to Sinai “means transferring the fighting” to that area, which will become “a base for attacking Israel.”

In this context, he pointed to the possibility of transferring the Palestinians to the Negev desert “until Israel ends its operation in Gaza.”

Common borders

The Negev Desert stretches over an area exceeding 14,000 square kilometers, in the southern regions of the occupied Palestinian territories. It borders Jordan to the east and the Sinai Desert to the west. It is separated from the Red Sea by the city of Eilat to the south. The city of Hebron (south of the West Bank) is one of the closest Palestinian cities to its north.

Despite this vast area, the population does not exceed 100,000 citizens, according to Palestinian estimates. Those live in 46 villages, 36 of which are not recognized by the occupation authorities.

According to Palestinian media reports, the Arab communities in the Negev Desert “suffer clear neglect by the Israeli occupation authorities,” despite the establishment of settlements and military projects in limited areas of that region, most notably the Dimona nuclear reactor.

In remarks to Asharq Al-Awsat, expert in Israeli affairs at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies Dr. Saeed Okasha said the Negev Desert was a poor region in terms of resources.

He emphasized an Israeli desire “to get rid of [the region] in exchange for more useful lands for Israeli settlement projects, or for plans that serve the displacement of Palestinians to neighboring countries.”

Okasha went on to say that the Negev Desert proposal within the ideas of exchanging lands with neighboring countries or with the Palestinian Authority “has been on the table since the 1950s.”

It was presented for the first time to former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who rejected it.

The expert in Israeli affairs added that the land exchange was proposed again in 2000 to late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, in exchange for giving up 600 square kilometers of West Bank land to expand Israeli settlements, but Arafat also refused.

In early 2010, former Israeli National Security Advisor Giora Eiland published a study in which he indicated that the new Kingdom of Jordan was the homeland of the Palestinians, and should consist of three regions that include the West and East Banks and Greater Gaza, which takes part of Egypt.

Egyptian writer and political analyst Sleiman Gouda said that the Israelis’ constant feeling of the limited strategic depth of their territories was the reason behind their continuous desire to expand whenever the opportunity arose.

Most Viewed

 
Features

Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
TT
20
TT

Career Diplomat Becomes the Face of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda at the UN

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)
US Ambassador to the United Nations, Dorothy Shea (C), addresses a UN Security Council meeting called following a recent missile strike by Russia on a residential area in Ukraine, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, New York, USA, 08 April 2025. (EPA)

The highest-ranking US representative now at the United Nations told Congress two years ago that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was "unprovoked" and "unjustified," urging UN members to condemn Moscow’s aggression and demand an end to the war.

In February, it was the same career diplomat, Dorothy Shea, who voiced the Trump administration's extraordinary decision to split with European allies and refuse to back a UN resolution blaming Russia for its invasion on the third anniversary of the war.

While it is typical for diplomats to stay on as US presidents — and their political parties — change, Shea's interim role has unexpectedly made her a face of the stunning US transition on the world stage, with President Donald Trump's "America First" approach increasingly upending the post-World War II international order.

Shea will be in place longer than expected after Trump's unusual decision last month to withdraw his nominee for UN ambassador, Rep. Elise Stefanik, from consideration because of a slim Republican House majority.

"I would say (Shea’s) position is unique. It is probably particularly unique in that because of the extraordinary change, not just from one administration to another, but really an era of US foreign policy, even when there were nuanced differences," said Phillip Reeker, the former acting assistant secretary of state for Europe. "The change in the vote that took place at the UN on the Russia-Ukraine war was really an inflection point in US policy."

A UN vote changes US messaging on Ukraine

On Feb. 24, the US joined Russia in voting against a European-backed Ukrainian resolution demanding an immediate withdrawal of Moscow's forces. A dueling US resolution noted "the tragic loss of life" and called for "a swift end to the conflict," but it didn't mention Moscow’s aggression as the Trump administration opened negotiations with Russia on a ceasefire.

"Continuing to engage in rhetorical rivalries in New York may make diplomats feel vindicated, but it will not save souls on the battlefield," Shea, 59, said at the time. "Let us prove to ourselves and to our citizens that we can come together and agree on the most basic principles. Let us show one another that the bold vision of peace that once pulled us out of hell can prevail."

The message was a shocking retreat for the US in the 193-member UN General Assembly, whose resolutions are not legally binding but are seen as a barometer of world opinion. It also reinforced the fears of some allies about what a second Trump presidency could mean for longstanding transatlantic partnerships — and whether the US could remain a bulwark against aggressors like Russia.

For Shea, it was another day at work. She has spent the last 30-plus years serving as a diplomat under both Republican and Democratic presidents — from Bill Clinton to Trump — carrying out their policies even if they were a departure from longstanding US positions.

"I don’t know what her personal views are on things. But administrations change, policies change. And your job as a diplomat is to advocate for those policies," said a former colleague and deputy US ambassador, Robert Wood, who recently retired.

The US mission to the UN declined to comment. The State Department did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.

The roots of a diplomat

Shea's work has included stints in South Africa, where she witnessed Nelson Mandela become the first democratically elected president, and Israel, where she worked on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Shea grew up in the suburbs of Washington — her father a World War II veteran and her mother active in the local Japanese American friendship society. The experience of Japanese exchange students staying with her family over several summers and wanting to understand world events propelled her into international relations at the University of Virginia. After graduation, she scored a job offer with the US Foreign Service.

She worked her way up and in 2019 was tapped to be Trump's ambassador to Lebanon, where the soft-spoken diplomat made headlines for her criticism of the Hezbollah group. A Lebanese judge banned local and foreign media outlets from interviewing Shea for a year, saying her criticism of Hezbollah was seditious and a threat to social peace.

In 2023, Biden nominated Shea to become No. 2 at the UN.

The top US role at the UN — for now

It is unclear when Shea will hand off to a Senate-confirmed political appointee. Stefanik went through a confirmation hearing, but her nomination was pulled last month because her vote to advance Trump's agenda remains crucial to Republicans in the House. The GOP congresswoman was the fourth Trump nominee not to make it through the confirmation process.

Trump has made no mention of whom he would nominate to replace Stefanik and fill his last remaining Cabinet seat. Until then, Shea is at the helm at a critical moment for US foreign policy, selling big changes to dealing with both allies and adversaries and defending the administration's slashing of foreign assistance.

The White House recently proposed additional drastic cuts to the State Department, which would include eliminating funding for nearly all international organizations, such as the UN.

The proposal is highly preliminary but reflects the administration's isolationist view, which, along with funding uncertainties, poses a major challenge to the mandate and work of the UN.