Which Arab countries supported the Trump Israel peace plan and why?

1. Which Arab countries publicly backed the plan — the who

Multiple outlets list the same set of states as publicly welcoming or urging adoption of Trump’s plan: United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey are repeatedly named, and several reports also include Indonesia and Pakistan among Muslim states that urged swift adoption or joined joint statements ^{[1] [3] [2] [6]}. News organizations and U.N. debate coverage credit these governments with supplying key diplomatic weight that helped persuade abstentions from Russia and China at the Security Council ^{[2] [3]}.

2. Why they backed it — immediate humanitarian and security incentives

Governments emphasized ending the fighting, freeing hostages, and stabilizing Gaza. Supporters framed the plan as a vehicle to secure a ceasefire, humanitarian access, and an international stabilization mechanism — goals attractive to states facing refugee flows, cross‑border violence risks, and domestic pressures over civilian suffering in Gaza ^{[1] [4] [2]}. Several states also signalled willingness to provide stabilization troops, but only under U.N. authorization to avoid accusations at home of occupation ^{[2] [3]}.

3. Geopolitics and leverage — protecting longer‑term interests

Beyond immediate relief, Arab backing reflected diplomatic calculations: Gulf states and regional actors saw an opening to shape postwar governance in Gaza, to press Israel on annexation and Al‑Aqsa status, and to regain influence with the U.S. administration that could deliver security guarantees and economic cooperation ^{[6] [5] [7]}. Some reporting describes Arab input as shifting the White House framing and supplying a “single, unified Arab proposal” that Trump used to craft his plan ^{[5] [6]}.

4. The role of troop contributions and the U.N. vote

Arab and Muslim states played a decisive role in the U.N. Security Council outcome by supporting the resolution, which reportedly swayed Russia and China to abstain rather than veto; sources credit Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (and other Muslim states) with helping secure the mandate that would allow some countries to send stabilization forces while shielding them politically at home ^{[2] [3]}. Those states insisted on Security Council authorization so domestic audiences would not view any deployment as an occupation ^[2].

5. Competing viewpoints and limits to the support

Not all regional actors were fully aligned: reporting notes pushback from hard‑right elements in Israel and skepticism from Palestinian factions; some Arab leaders conditioned their backing on strong language protecting Palestinian rights, halting annexation, and ensuring humanitarian access ^{[8] [7] [6]}. Analysts and critics also warned that portions of the plan — such as envisaged economic redevelopment or population movements tied to a “Riviera” vision — risked displacement and raised alarm at the U.N. and among rights groups ^{[5] [9]}.

6. Hidden agendas and incentives to sign on

Sources show multiple implicit agendas: Gulf states wanted influence over postwar Gaza and to preserve gains from prior normalization with Israel; some governments sought to use backing as leverage with the United States; and others were motivated by domestic stability concerns — chiefly preventing wider regional escalation or refugee flows ^{[5] [7] [4]}. At the U.N., the U.S. counted on Arab support to break isolation it had faced, while regional states gained political cover for roles in Gaza’s stabilization ^{[2] [3]}.

7. What reporting here does not cover

Available sources do not mention detailed internal debates within each foreign ministry, the exact quid pro quo packages (economic or security guarantees) offered to each Arab government, nor long‑term troop‑commitment timetables beyond references to willingness to contribute under U.N. authorization (not found in current reporting). Specific polling of Arab domestic audiences reacting to each government’s stance is also not provided in these sources (not found in current reporting).

Conclusion: Arab and Muslim backing for Trump’s plan combined humanitarian urgency, security calculations, and diplomatic bargaining. Their public support helped clear a path at the U.N., but reporting shows substantive caveats and political tradeoffs — both within the region and between regional actors and Washington — that leave the plan’s durability and acceptance among Palestinians unresolved ^{[2] [1] [3] [6]}.