Dem
47
GOP
53
Everyone reading this knows that there was a small but vocal segment of the voting population—mostly progressives and Muslim-Americans—who held Joe Biden responsible for committing "genocide" in Gaza, and who voted for Donald Trump because Trump would somehow be "better" for those folks. This was a dubious proposition, to say the least. And in case there were any doubts, Trump dispelled them yesterday.
There is, at this point, a well-known axiom about Trump: "Take him seriously, not literally." And so, when he's issued forth with his talk about redeveloping Gaza into a luxury resort, the message we took from that was "Trump clearly places little value on the people of Gaza, and cares little for their humanity." We did not take him literally. Turns out, that was a mistake. Trump held a press conference with Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday and, referring to Gaza several times as a "demolition site," he said the following things:
"[The United States will] own [Gaza]. We're going to take over that piece, develop it and create thousands and thousands of jobs, and it will be something the entire Middle East can be proud of."
"I envision the world people living there, the world's people. You'll make that into an international unbelievable place. I think the potential in the Gaza strip is unbelievable, [it could be] the riviera of the Middle East."
"The whole thing is a mess. I don't think people should be going back to Gaza. I think that Gaza has been very unlucky for them. They've lived like hell; they've lived like you're living in hell. Gaza is not a place for people to be living. The only reason they want to go back, and I believe this strongly, is they have no alternative. What's the alternative? Go where? If they had an alternative, they'd much rather not go back to Gaza and live in a beautiful alternative that's safe."
"[The Palestinians will] be resettled in areas where they can live a beautiful life... [Egypt and Jordan] say they're not going to accept [the Palestinians]. I say they will, but I think other countries will accept also."
We think it is important for readers to see Trump's actual words. Quite a few publications, when writing up this story, had headlines like the one in The New York Times: "Trump Proposes U.S. Takeover of Gaza and Says All Palestinians Should Leave." From where we sit, this seems like sanewashing. He did not "propose" the idea, he said he's going to do it. He went FAR beyond "propose," in our view.
We can see no reason to think Trump isn't serious about this. He's been talking like this for months; this isn't one of his "idle thoughts" that he drops an hour later. And this is not a phony trade war; there are no "concessions" he might secure from the Palestinians or anyone else that would allow him to declare "victory" later this week and back down. He, and his base, dislike Muslims, and cheer any expansion of Israeli territory or power. Also, Trump is clearly thinking about "legacy," and he clearly thinks that changes to the world map are the way to secure his place in history. He didn't say it yesterday, but it's entirely plausible that he's thinking that the "redevelopment project" would be named something like "the Trump Riviera." Finally, on top of all of this, he's a real estate developer, and surely sees opportunities to line his pockets (or, maybe those of Jared Kushner) here. In short, moving forward with this proposal checks a lot of boxes for him: political win, place in the history books, profit. He's certainly going to take a shot at it.
That, then, raises the next question: Can he actually do it? It looks depressingly plausible to us. As we have written many times, presidents have a pretty free hand when it comes to deploying the U.S. military. The War Powers Act of 1973 allows deployment for up to 90 days, solely on presidential authority. And it's easy enough to extend this through trickery (troops leave the area for 1 hour, thus restarting the clock on the 90 days), or just by pretending the 90-day limit does not exist. Alternatively, Trump could keep U.S. personnel out of the picture completely; it would almost certainly be enough for him to just tell Netanyahu: "You have approval to clear Gaza; the U.S. will not intervene."
Is there anyone who might put a stop to Trump's machinations? Sure... maybe. Congress could do it if they passed a resolution updating the War Powers Act, or otherwise forbidding Trump from taking action in Gaza, and then backed that up with a promise of impeachment and conviction if their directives are not honored. But such forceful action to rein Trump in is not likely forthcoming from THIS Congress (and see below for more).
Alternatively, the international community could get involved. The problem here, as events in Europe in 1938-39 demonstrated so plainly, is that once a nation or a leader is no longer responding to diplomatic pressure, then the only options left are "war" or "look the other way." We do not think that, say, the U.K. or France will be able to persuade Trump to think better of his plans, even if they threaten sanctions or other punitive measures. And we certainly don't think they are willing to declare war against the United States. And if these suppositions are correct, then that pretty much leaves them with "look the other way."
As Trump's remarks yesterday make clear, the question of where nearly 2 million people might be moved to is a tricky one, and could throw a wrench into the works. However, he's clearly willing to twist the arms of Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian king Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein until they break. And if they do not yield, Trump will have no qualms about dumping the Palestinians in some other place. It was announced this week that the administration has made a deal with El Salvador; the U.S. will pay some currently unknown amount of money, and El Salvador will take any people the U.S. dumps on them, up to and including violent criminals. Is there any reason to think Trump would not pursue the same arrangement with some cash-strapped country in the vicinity of Gaza?
The upshot is that, based on the evidence currently available, it looks to us like it is considerably more likely than not that Trump is going to move forward with this. Or, at least, that he's going to try. And while the "Genocide Joe" label is definitely open to debate, for multiple reasons, what Trump is proposing is the textbook definition of ethnic cleansing. Here, for example, is the E.U.'s official definition of that term: "Rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group, which is contrary to international law."
Assuming Trump does try it, he may end up receiving a nasty surprise courtesy of the one source of resistance that actually looks viable to us: The Palestinians. If the administration allows Israel to do the dirty work, it will become an international scandal, and there will be mass blowback in the United States. If Trump sends U.S. troops to handle it, the risks are even greater. Recent history has shown that guerrilla insurgencies are rather tougher to contain than it seems (e.g., Vietnam). And imagine the headlines when and if American soldiers die at the hands of Palestinian resistance. "American soldiers die in service of Trump real estate project." That will be a bad look, to say the least.
Anyone who cares about civilians in Gaza, or about American soldiers who might be deployed, or about peace in general, should be hoping that someone can sit Trump down, help him to understand the enormous risks entailed, and convince him to back off this crazy—and, to be blunt, evil—plan. But the President is so single-minded, and so simple-minded, we are not optimistic. (Z)