Trump’s lack of clarity; his critics’ hypocrisy

Four thoughts on Trump’s bombshell yesterday.

1) Most important. My initial thoughts – like everyone else’s – might look very stupid in a few days or weeks. Judging Trump’s proposals when they’re still at the stage of “Trump’s shock announcement!” is a fool’s errand. Wait until it’s fleshed out. Wait until we see (if we see) a detailed proposal of the plan. What he presented yesterday was far to vague and potentially self-contradictory to be taken completely at face value. For example he said the Palestinians in Gaza should “resettle permanently” elsewhere. But when asked who would live in this rebuilt “Riviera”  he responded: “I envision world people living there, the world’s people… representatives from all over the world, Palestinians, also.” So does that mean the Palestinians who have to leave can return to Gaza after all?

Let’s all wait until there’s something substantive to read before we get too excited – in either direction – about this proposal.

2) That said, some of the practicalities of this plan have already hit the rocks of reality. For one thing, not one single Arab state supports the plan, so it is not clear where the 1.8 million Palestinians would go. In addition, there is less than wholehearted support from an important segment of Trump’s own coalition. As Republican Senator Josh Hawley said: “I don’t know that I think it’s the best use of United States resources to spend a bunch of money in Gaza. I think maybe I prefer that to be spent in the United States first.” Lest we forget, Trump was elected on an a platform of ‘America First’ economic populism, with strong support from a isolationist New Right movement that firmly rejects spending billions of dollars overseas.

3) What about this whole question of “relocating” 1.8 million Palestinians from Gaza. Nowhere does Trump mention in his statement forcing them to leave. He simply states that if they have the opportunity to leave they will. There’s good reason to doubt this is the case for all, or even most, of them. But… it might be the case for a large portion of them. And here we come to one of the (many) great hypocrisies of the debate around this conflict. As Alex Stein wrote in his excellent “Love of the Land” Substack:

Since the war began, there’s been a bizarre contradiction whereby observers have simultaneously argued a genocide has been taking place while rejecting any suggestion of offering Gazans refuge elsewhere.
Compare and contrast this with the Syrian Civil War, during which over five million Syrians fled the country (in addition to nearly seven million people displaced within Syria itself). There was massive pressure on Western countries to take in the refugees. Nobody made the argument one commonly hears regarding the war in Gaza: that by accepting refugees, countries would be complicit in their ethnic cleansing… Indeed, this has surely been the first war in modern history where there has been no concerted effort to provide a haven for civilians caught up in the fighting.

This is of course also connected to UNRWA and the role it has played over decades – funded by western aid – to perpetuate the idea of permanent, multi-generational Palestinian victimhood; a victimhood that demands the redress of Israel’s defeat and destruction. And here we have another absurdity. If – as UNRWA and, by extension, its Western backers, claim – some two-thirds of Gazans are refugees, then why is it a problem for them to be relocated elsewhere? If they’re refugees, they are not living in their permanent homes.

As I said above, it’s hard to see how this “relocation” occurs given the lack of willing recipient countries – and forced expulsion of civilians would be abhorrent – but it’s worth considering why there is so much moral indignation about allowing voluntary emigration of Gazans.

4) Parts of the Israeli right are getting very excited by Trump’s statement. I understand why, but they should hold their horses – and not only because I think it’s unlikely to happen. As I’ve written elsewhere, there seems to be a misconception of Trump among the Ben Gvirs of this world. He is neither an ideological supporter of annexation, nor does he care about the damage it would do to Israeli democracy. He sees everything through the prism of his interpretation of America’s interests – and, of course, his own. He said yesterday that there will be an announcement on the issue of annexation in four weeks, so we’ll see. My best guess is that after conversations with his friends in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, he’ll come out against it.

And for all the excitement from the right at the prospect of removing the Palestinians from Gaza, they should note that he said quite explicitly that he opposed the rebuilding of Israeli settlements therein. Yes, his radical plan for America control of the Strip would mean no role for either Hamas or the Palestinian Authority; but neither would it mean the return to pre-2005 Israeli rule that Ben Gvir, Smotrich and others have been demanding.

ADDENDUM: As I was about to send this blog off to be published, a headline has caught my eye: “After uproar, White House says Trump only seeking to remove Gazans ‘temporarily’”. I started this piece with a warning that we should wait a few days before making definitive judgements about what this proposal means. Turns out I overestimated how long it would take before certain people’s immediate reactions start to look very premature. Someone should ask Ben Gvir what he thinks about the plan now…