Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
When a real estate developer becomes president of the United States, it is not surprised if American foreign policy includes a great help of real estate development.
That is probably the greatest conclusion to reach Donald Trump’s surprising proposal so that the United States takes over Gaza and makes it a resort so that all people in the world enjoy, a “Riviera del Medio East”, in his words .
It also presents the latest version of a question that has persisted while Trump has been involved at the highest level of American policy.
Should the Trump Gaza Development Plan, which includes the resettlement of more than two million Palestinians and the “property” of the United States of disputed lands are literally or seriously taken? Both or neither of them?
Trump’s proposal flies in the face of the deeply sustained desires of the Palestinian people and has been summarily rejected by the Arab nations that would have to play an integral role in the resettlement of the displaced people of the Gaza devastated by the war.
He has also caused howls of protest of the international community, as well as the president’s national critics in the Democratic party.
“Developing land devastated by war as a Trump golf complex is not a peace plan, it is an insult,” said Democratic congressman Troy Carter of Louisiana. “Serious leaders pursue real solutions, not real estate agreements.”
Even some of Trump’s strongest Republican allies have seemed distrustful of the president’s suggestion that US forces could occupy Gaza, clearing the rubble and eliminating the unimpossed Israeli ordinance.
“I think that most of the South Carolinians would probably not be excited to send the Americans to take care of Gaza,” Lindsey Graham said Wednesday, who represents South Carolina Wednesday in the United States Senate. “I think that could be problematic, but I will keep an open mind.”
Kentucky’s Senator Rand Paul was even more blunt.
“I thought we voted first for the United States,” he wrote in X. “We have no business contemplating another occupation to condemn our treasure and spill the blood of our soldiers.”
Paul highlights what has been an apparent contradiction in the first weeks of Trump’s presidency. While Trump has sacrificed the foreign help of the United States and has committed to focus on American domestic concerns, he has also raised his comments with talking about US expansionism.
His interest in acquiring Greenland is persistent and, according to administration officials, it is deadly. His talk of making Canada the “State 51” and resume the Panama Canal is no longer treated as a joke.
And now Trump, one of the most vowel critics of the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq in the United States, is suggesting a new construction project of the Middle East nation.
As for the specific ideas behind Trump’s last proposal, they can be shocking for some, but they should not be very shock.
The president spoke of “cleaning” Gaza and rearing the Palestinians in comments to journalists in Air Force one a few days after his inauguration.
During the presidential campaign, he told the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that Gaza could be “better than Monaco”, but that the Palestinians “never took advantage of” their “best location in the Middle East.”
This is also not the first time that Trump sees an apparently intractable foreign policy situation as an exciting business opportunity.
During meetings with Kim Jong a North Korea in 2018, President Trump marveled at the “great beaches” of the hermit nation, which one day could have the “best hotels.”
These ambitious dreams have been filed, and Trump’s vision of Gaza, which would require a significant commitment of American blood and fortune at a time when his foreign participations are reduced, will surely face the same destiny.
But Trump’s proposal represents a change marked in the United States’s commitment to a solution of two states to the Palestinian situation.
A generous interpretation of the American strategy is that it is designed to shake the powers of the Middle East and force them to commit more of their own resources, and the political will, to find a long -term solution to the situation in Gaza.
But such strategy would come with risks.
The high the Fire of multiple steps Israelí-Ahamas hangs in balance. The Palestinians could see Trump’s comments as a sign that the United States is not interested in lasting peace, while Israeli hard funds that are a key part of the ruling coalition of Benjamin Netanyahu can celebrate it as Trump’s green light for Trump further expand Israeli settlements.
The Arab nations, some of which worked with the first Trump administration to produce standardized relationships with Israel in Abraham’s agreements, can doubt whether Trump in his second term can be a reliable negotiation partner.
Now there are years of evidence that Trump’s approach can change at any time. In the end, I could abandon all attempts to negotiate a lasting peace of the Middle East, blaming the Palestinians and their Arab allies for what they could see as their decision to reject the possibility of a better eliminated life of past conflicts.
Then, he has returned to trade wars with Canada, condominiums in North Korea, mining sites in Greenland or some other challenge that does not divide his own party or requires resolving centuries of animosity with apparently intractable ancestral concerns.
